Shorter Thomas “Actually I’m Whiter Than Pat Boone” Sowell, America’s Shittiest Website™
A Racial Revolution?

• Unless we do something about all the black babies being born today, we will become a bankrupt welfare state, unable to afford to pay even for our own national defense and therefore doomed to being overrun by foreign invaders.

I was going to say, with regard to Tom Sowell, that inside every black wingnut there was a white man struggling to get out. But I don’t think that’s true for Tom. Actually, I am beginning to believe that he actually believes that he is white. Otherwise how could be possibly react to figures showing that non-white births now exceed white births by conjuring up the Negro apocalypse and the end of white society as we know it? What kind of person bemoans the birth of more persons like himself?

Of course, Sowell’s argument is based on a central tenet of the white wingnut worldview that most entitlement benefits go to the ni**ers and b**ners. Sadly, No!

Also, contrary to what a substantial share of Americans may assume, non-Hispanic whites receive slightly more than their proportionate share of entitlement benefits. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 64 percent of the population in 2010 and received 69 percent of the entitlement benefits.

As is par for the course at America’s Shittiest Website™, the comments are even more appalling than the column itself.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

Shorter Mark J. Fitzgibbons, The American Birther
Obama the Inchoate Kenyan

• Either Obama was born in Kenya or he’s a liar

God himself could descend from the heavens in a burning, fiery chariot, land in Times Square in a flourish of lightning and thunderbolts, appear on live TV and say that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, that he witnessed it himself, and that he was as certain of that fact as he was that the Cubs will never win the World Series and yet there would still be millions of Republicans who would take issue with even this testimony, who would claim that this wasn’t really God because he didn’t look like Charlton Heston, or that it might be God but that God was perpetrating liberal lies because he had been bought and paid for by the Democrats and the Lamestream Media. Breitbart.com would analyze the tapes and conclude that God was really Al Sharpton in a beard and a fat suit and that the lightning had all the earmarks of cheap, computer-generated effects.

So, now, of course, birth certificate be damned, the Birtherites are all a-twitter because of a statement published by a literary agency in a 1991 bio of Obama stating that Obama was born in Kenya. (Query: if I take my web bio with me to vote to prove that I’m an American, will that be sufficient?) The person who wrote the bio has said that it was her mistake, that there was no basis for her statement that Barack was born in Kenya. Hah, of course, she would say that now, the birthers clamor. At least if she doesn’t want to be killed by the White House. Like Andrew Breitbart was.

Never ones to let a wonderful opportunity for proslepsis go by the wayside, the mental titans over at The American Thinker have dreamed up a way to spread the story while claiming that they don’t really believe Obama was born in Kenya. (Wink, wink.) Actually, it’s better even than that because it’s a perfect melding of proslepsis and the wingnut all-time favorite, Heads We Win, Tails Obama Loses. So we have Mark Fitzgibbons, allegedly a lawyer of some sort, waving the Obama bio about like a host-filled monstrance in a Corpus Christi procession, not as proof of Obama’s birth place but as proof that Obama conspired with his literary agent to claim he was Kenyan in order to sell his book. Because, of course, nothing pushes a book up into the best seller list like having an African author. Why, there are at least several thousand best-sellers by Kenyans in the past twenty years alone. You probably didn’t know it but both Harry Potter and The Hunger Games were written by Kenyans. True fact.

And what should be the punishment for this vile manipulation of the invisible hand of the free market? Nothing would be too harsh for this dastardly violation of the principle of the free market which “goes back to the Old Testament.” (Yes, Fitzgibbons actually mentions that missing commandment: “Thou Shalt Have A Free Market and Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Socialist Safety Net.”). Death?  Impeachment?  Better yet, death by impeachment? Maybe some waterboarding and the rack thrown in for good measure?

It makes you wonder where all the torches and pitchforks were when George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to plunge this country into war with Iraq. That doesn’t count because, shut up, that’s why.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

Helen Bot Not Know What Privilege Is, But Know it Make Master Sad. Helen Bot Must Make Master Happy… Helen Bot Knows What Makes Master Happy… Helen Bot Destroy Person Who Mentions Privilege… Only Way to Prevent… Helen Bot Not Want to Dwell.

Dr. Helen, PJ Tatler:
Uncle Tim: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is*

Let me get one thing straight before I begin. PJ Media is not the bottom of the barrel for one’s wingnut career.

PJ Media wishes it was the bottom of the barrel. It stands outside in the cold winsomely peering through a frosted over window wishing it could be the floor that the barrel stomps on with its shined up jackboots. The barrel refuses to be in the same county as PJ Media.

And no wonder with sections like the “PJ Tatler”. I was boggling a scant two months ago that PJ Media carried a fucking Lifestyles section. And now, we have a section named after a misspelled version of something elementary school bullies call their victims. I’m expecting the next section rolled out will just be PJ Goatse and instead of a tab it’ll just be fucking goatse!

Sigh, so yeah, now their tab is filled with “Columnists” bunched up in the corner like the sad pack of bottom-rung losers they are, the shudder PJ Tatler, the PJ Lifestyles bullshit, Ol’ Perfesser languishing in the minors like he belongs, the hilariously bad local TV station level PJTV, and the PJ Institute. Which is just darling, because really, nothing says dignity and totally not being an obvious wingnut welfare mill that doesn’t even understand how the think tank scam works than sticking it after 3 jokes and a punchline.

But Cerberus, you might say? What about the post? Don’t you have some acerbic annihilation to impart?

… Sigh, yeah.

Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):

• Nuh uh, straight white men don’t shut down and whine like babies at the first mention of privilege! Let me demonstrate that by shutting down and whining like a baby at the first mention of privilege on behalf of straight white men. Do I get to join the honorary male club now? Huh, do I? Do I?

If sexbots ever get invented, don’t expect to see “slutty” versions of famous actresses to be the most powerful models. Expect to see endless versions of Dr. Helen. Because to the sort of sad sack of shit that would purchase one, the chance to fulfill endless sexual fantasies will always pale in comparison to having one of those vile feminine harpies joining on their bitching crusade about how Suzie is a bitch for not recognizing their inherent genius and superiority (and isn’t that worth a lifetime of sucking the dick of a smug asshole? Huh Suzie?!?).

A reader (thanks!) sent me a post by John Scalzi, the science fiction author of such books Old Man’s War and an upcoming book titled Redshirts: A Novel with Three Codas. Scalizi’s post is entitled: “Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is”:

So, yeah, John Scalzi, hard at work trying to become the sci-fi writer who is the awesomest as a person instead of just as a writer (sadly, not an overly difficult accomplishment), wrote a piece on privilege.

It’s well-written, uses a strong metaphor, and tries to make a novel approach to the tireless task of giving assholes the Privilege 101 conversation.

Sadly, it was always doomed to failure because no matter how nicely or novel you present it, the type of straight white man that devolves into fits over a privilege conversation will do so for all privilege conversations.

And that’s simply because they don’t object to the conversation so much as the very reality. Not just that reality, but all reality.

And that’s because they need two things to be true:

1) The continued existence of privilege for them and discrimination for others, at the same levels it has always existed, in order for them to feel the high thrill of “succeeding” and thus feeling like anything other than a complete loser who makes a dog’s breakfast of their lives.

2) And a complete global denial of the existence of privilege. It doesn’t count as winning when everyone can see the blade marks of where you hamstrung all the other competitors before the race. They need to pretend that it was only their own hard work (of being born into the right genetic patterns or parentage) that made them what they are or else 1 might as well be a Participation medal at an Elementary School Athletics Competition.

So, yeah, the first and only step is to whine and bitch and scream and pound on the ground whenever anyone so much as breathes a word of the stacked deck. Let’s let the Helen Bot demonstrate:

I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word “privilege,” to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon. It’s not that the word “privilege” is incorrect, it’s that it’s not their word. When confronted with “privilege,” they fiddle with the word itself, and haul out the dictionaries and find every possible way to talk about the word but not any of the things the word signifies.

Scalzi gives some lame analogy about computers and being male in US society in which straight white men have it the easiest and minorities and women and all others are born into trouble:

Not bad on the distraction scale. Cut the quote off before you get to the meat of the post. Make an eye-rolling dismissive shorter that tells rather than shows. A good solid setup…

Or at least it would be if Dr. Helen hadn’t been stupid enough to write down the fucking title of Scalzi’s post! Yeah, his title kind of is his main point, in fact, the analogy he makes is right there in the title. “Straight white male is the lowest difficulty setting”. The lazy tigers of PJ Media don’t even need to move their mouses to see Dr. Helen’s complete fail.

Heck, to make it easier for them, she adapted the title of his post for her own damn post. An adaption, mind, that requires them to actually click on the link or read Scalzi’s title in order to even understand.

At this level of lazy self-destruction, I’m pretty sure it qualifies as a cry for help. So many posts writing about how bitches deserve to die and their rapist masters should be given free blowjobs all day every day to a jungle of tigers that will roar at anything she puts down… At this point, she wants to get caught out, for someone to fix her broken processor and get her out of her dungeon.

…

What? We’re just here to point at laugh. Ha ha, stupid robot, can’t even get out of a little quicksand!

So that’s “Straight White Male” for you in The Real World (and also, in the real world): The lowest difficulty setting there is. All things being equal, and even when they are not, if the computer — or life — assigns you the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, then brother, you’ve caught a break.

I say “bullshit.” Straight white men are today’s whipping boy.

Yes, verily, for straight white men have long been kept out of the very halls of pow… Ah, truly their earning potentials have long been reduced by… Ah, of course, they are often over-prosecuted for victimless crimes and have their neighborhoods designated the “bad ones” simply because they… Maybe they are more targeted for hate crimes or have numerous current laws targeting them specifically for second-class citizen… Oh.

You meant that sometimes people DARE ask their holy selves for a hand out of the gutter they dug for them and sometimes even politely ask them to at least stop pissing on them while they’re down.

Well, hold on there, Theodore Joadson! I’m not sure people can take such a frank story of such immense and horrific oppression!

Scalzi’s fawning commenters start out telling him how brilliant his little essay is while this Uncle Tim and some (but not all–some commenters fight back) of his sycophants eat it up.

Yes, whenever commenters praise a good work of craft, especially at a blog they regularly read because they agree with the content more often than not, that is no truer sign that the work is completely without merit and isn’t even worth a response.

A true work of art and erudition is one that is universally panned, even by those who usually have tolerance for the author’s crap and which is repeatedly debunked by anyone with half a brain cell.

I see nothing at all wrong with that construction.

Though… um… Helen Bot? How is that supposed to scan with the fact that every single conservative comment thread is nothing but the tigers jumping over themselves to praise the author and nominate them for sainthood? This is another one of those cries for help, isn’t it?

Also…

Uncle Tim? What the flying fuck level of stupid is this shit? An Uncle Tom is a black person who will do anything to stay in good with the dominant power. You know, like you do with regards to throwing your fellow sisters under the bus.

What you are thinking of is a race traitor, or rather a sex traitor. I.e. someone who dares try and treat the underclass as equals thus “betraying” the dominant class.

But I guess using the first word that popped in your head was a little too obvious for even the broken dog-whistled current Republican Party. So instead we get this nonsensical insanity instead.

And on a related note, how is “being a sex traitor” the “easiest difficulty setting” to follow your IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION? Cause by the very analogy you’ve shat out, that’s simply impossible.

Cause either Scalzi reality is right and straight white men are the most privileged group of people and thus siding with women drops you a rank. Or Helen Bot’s green-skied mirror-universe is correct and women are the most powerful group of people on the planet and thus men who curry their favor are inherently second-class citizens.

I know it’s a petty thing to pummel her on, but I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t mind anymore that the premises are from Saturn and the facts are from their fucking distended assholes! I just want them to be internally consistent. Or at least, if not that, then not immediately disproving itself before the internet professional snark brigade can get a good solid boot in.

Seriously, wingnuts, you got to leave me something to work with!

In my upcoming book with Encounter Publishing entitled “Male Strike: Why Society’s War Against Men is Suicidal and What to Do About It,” I discuss these Uncle Tim types (those who put down other men) whose life is made easier by pandering to women and other men who are either Uncle Tims themselves or White Knights trying to save a damsel in distress.

In my upcoming book: “Please love me and treat me like a man instead of a useless woman” I discuss such important topics as how I wish my robotic joints would allow a sex change so I could be less of a burden on male society and why my inventor apparently thought that the Stepford Men’s Association was a bunch of pussy-loving faggots.

Also, not to interrupt a good tantrum, but was there going to be any actual response to Scalzi’s post?

I mean, you literally quoted the section where he said explaining privilege causes straight white men to shriek in horror and shut down and have basically just called him a man-hater who was attacking men for it.

I know and you know that you’ve got nothing, but you could make it a little less obvious that your side thinks politely pointing out the existence of reality is equivalent to 3 Hiroshimas and an Auschwitz?

There is always a benefit to putting down straight white males. What’s yours, Scalzi?

Yeah! Treating women like full human beings, acknowledging basic reality! There must be something in it for you! Like getting into women’s pants!

…not that anyone would ever want that.

I mean, Glenn constantly tells me that whenever he beats me for lacking a robot penis he can lovingly stroke! So what is it? Opting out of the incoming Gynocracy? Free money from the Abortion Industry? The fabled ability to interact with the world that exists rather than pining for a past that never was?!?

What is your secret Scalzi?!? TELL ME!!!!!

My question to readers is, what is the best way to handle an Uncle Tim who puts down other men, laughs at their misfortune and even gets ahead politically with this behavior?

Yeah, how do you handle the strawman I created, readers? My diodes have literally given up after so much misuse that I can’t even be arsed to finish my own setups. Yeah, this guy is an enemy of the Manosphere and blah blah, tell me why he’s a demon fag and post it under my name.

Apparently, not only has Jonah given the right their template for every single post they ever write anymore (“no, you see, it is actually (X group that is genuinely being oppressed) who are the real oppressors”), but apparently has also given them his work ethic.

Hey, why not skip that step as well and just let liberal snarkers write your posts for you. At this point, we could do it better than you ever could.

*You know, I’ve seen a lot of stupid shit in my time as a front-pager at this site, but I’ll admit… I wasn’t actually expecting to see someone literally try to pull a “No, you” in the fucking title to their projection filled “I’m rubber, you’re glue” post. Oh sure, I expected any number of posts that were basically saying it, but that had at least enough shame to hide it. This though? It’s her hogtying the popular girl and dipping her pigtais in ink in order to make the boys like her… while she’s in her fucking 40s! There might be sadder sights at Sadly, No, but frankly, not by much.

“Our Tannen at the sockhop, hallowed be thy name. Your punchings come, your trees to get out of here, in the Wild West as it is in the future. Give us this day our daily butthead, and give us our Hello McFlys, as we also have taken his wallet. And call us not the chicken, but deliver us the future betting book. Amen.”

Jim Geraghty, National Cuckoo:
Gird Yourself for the Tsunami of ‘Bullying and the 2012 Race’ Columns

Well it’s nice of wingnuts to warn us in the title what we can expect from them for the next 6 months.

Shorter (or second-to-last port before Jungle):

• Ah, fuck, why did we decide this election should be decided on personality rather than policy? Oh right, our policies suck. Well, fine then, bullies are a fiction of your imagination, you fucking nerds you.

Or to put it more simply:

Alternate Shorter (or last port before Jungle):

• Really, wasn’t everyone a bully when they were in high school?

So yeah, shock of shocks, the Smiler turns out to have been a childhood bully.

NO! REALLY?!?

The guy who is a low-functioning sociopath, tortured his dog because he could, tortures his kids on long road trips because he can, and enjoys firing people for the power trip was also a bully when he was a kid?!? That’s as shocking as when the bottle of Jasmine Green Tea in my fridge contained liquid ambrosia from the Gods (damn I love having a Korean grocery store pretty much next door to my apartment)!

And this presents a problem for the right-wing. Cause most people don’t like bullies, especially high school bullies. And most people have a lot invested in pretending said bullies that tormented them in school have gone off to have lives of quiet misery and failure rather than being rocketed to the tops of Fortune 500 companies based on their casual enjoyment of other people’s suffering.

But the right-wing need to defend Mitt Romney. Reflexively. He’s their guy, the guy they need to fall behind, the guy they’re literally ordered to drop behind and shine the ass of.

And it’s really not hard for them to do so on this issue. It hasn’t been a very well kept secret that the right-wing pretty much is entirely a retirement home for high school bullies and assorted douchebags at this point. I mean, pretty much all their tactics are just upscaled high school bully tactics. Tough talk and intimidation aimed at the most weak-appearing and most-outcast members of the general population, openly picking on said outcasts in overt ways, whining to the teachers (media) whenever their victims fight back in the slightest, talking tough about who’s ass their going to kick, stalking the girls and threatening them, verbal abuse, dirty tricks, etc…

So yeah, to the right-wing, this is Christmas! The guy they’ve been glumly following out of necessity has finally given them the sign that he’s one of them. He’s shaved off the head of the damn fag that gave them their first hate boner. He tricked that stupid blind teacher into a door to show that damn cripple who’s boss. He’s been there, given that swirlie to the nerd.

Every ounce of their body wants to celebrate and they can’t. Everyone hates bullies. And the right-wing is already in hot enough water with their unending bullying of women and latin@s in the last couple of years, not to mention their stead-fast resistance to all anti-bullying laws.

So what to do?

Well, if your the right-wing (or an unsurprisingly large number of our bought-and-sold media), you completely fail to hide your allegiances.

But enough setup, it’s time to see how Jim fights his personal losing battle against his own glee.

The rules of modern political journalism are that everything that occurs in a candidate’s life* is fair game for a thorough examination, and everything is imbued with some deeper meaning that reveals some key, fundamental truth about how the candidate will perform as president, and indeed the policies that president will pursue.

Yes, wonder who invented those rules that said the most important offices in the world were a glorified popularity contest to be decided on who’s winning the day? Could it be the party with terrible policies that also happens to own most of the media? Nah, that’s crazy talk.

But nice to see that now that you’re stuck with a sociopath disguised as a robot against the most affable doormat the world has ever seen, you’ve suddenly seen the errors of your ways and want to talk policy.

And not a moment too soon. We’ve got a backlog here! So should we start with the Republican stated goal of trashing the economy to win the 2012 election, the current War on Women, arguing that companies should own their employees, your proposed plans to eliminate Medicare, or your stated opposition to ever fixing our broken health care system?

(This isn’t true, as I’ll argue below, and I didn’t write those rules. But the world of political journalism still operates by those rules, whether or not we like them.)

We’ve seen this approach applied to the president:

(Followed by three post titles that are well-worn recent wingnut dog-whistles and distractions about the president barely hidden as links to theoretically liberal posts just talking about the Drudge leftovers)

… So no then, eh?

I know, I know, the Constitution is very clear on the “Conservatives win everything and liberals aren’t allowed to fight back or even campaign” clause, but what can you say. These modern liberals are sneaky sonuvabitches.

So undoubtedly, the tale of Mitt Romney being a prep-school bully is going to unleash a tsunami of the anecdote’s “deeper lessons” and “disturbing implications” and “revealing glimpses of hidden psychology” and so on for days, mostly from commentators who would look at a comparable anecdote about Obama and probably shrug. Lost in many of these arguments will be the idea that people change, and that perhaps the childhood, teen years, or even young-adult years of a person in their 50s or 60s aren’t the most illuminating or revealing factors in who they are today.

Well of course. Childhood actions aren’t really equivalent to adult actions on a 1-to-1 level. You know, like arguing that Obama and Romney are just as bad because Obama made a joke about eating what was served to him as a child while Romney tortured a dog in the very recent past as a theoretical grown-up.

Yeah, on it’s own and if the Smiler had shown any genuine remorse instead of basically going “ah shit, I’m sorry I got caught”, it would probably have been nothing. But when it turns out the Smiler’s life is made up of nothing but “isolated incident” of cruelty after another, it becomes another thing entirely.

That is to say, it becomes one specific thing. A thing that begins with a P- and ends with an -attern. That’s right, I’m talking about the Forest Green Rovers!

Probably didn’t help the Smiler’s case that this particular bit of no shit came after he fired his underused gay capo. Especially after he tried to dodge the blame for that fallout by claiming to have never been a homophobe in his life.

Almost every smart adult can point to at least one extraordinarily stupid, careless, or cruel thing they did in their younger years.

Yes… and… … wait…

I couldn’t have read that right.

Did you just basically assume that every single American adult (sorry, just the “smart” ones wherein smart means completely idiotic right-winger poured into a generic suit) can personally identify with bullies?

Oh sure, you were careful to coach the term in so much wiggle-room you can weave and argue later, but still. There is such a thing as context you know.

Wow, couldn’t even make it past the first paragraph out of the setup, could you?

To be fair to Jim though, most of the people he knows would answer yes. Mainly because they don’t even let you apply to work for the National Review unless you’ve performed at least one swirlie in your life.

My guess is that much of this commentary will focus on bullying, and how Mitt Romney supposedly never lost his bullying tendencies

My guess… undoubtedly…

No, Jim, I had no idea this was a panicked attempt to get ahead of a legitimately damaging story and feebly try and bury it. You disguised it so well what with not bothering to wait for any actual criticisms before you started taking the combine harvester to the scarecrows.

And what’s the word for when you’ve invented a strawman to destroy and it still ends up kicking your ass?

— never mind that he’s one of the most polite, even-tempered, and careful and cerebral figures in modern politics —

The Smiler is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

and how a President Romney would bully Congress, the American people, and the world.

I don’t think we needed evidence of his high school bullying practices to guess that one.

Fuck, I don’t even think we needed an actual candidate to guess that one. I mean, the Bush years pretty definitively demonstrated that that’s pretty much the Republican default mode these days.

Inevitably, commentators will draw upon their personal experiences with bullying. I’m struck by how few people say that they weren’t bullied at all during their childhood and teen years. But just as it is mathematically impossible for everyone who was “always the last one picked for sports” to be the actual one, most people’s childhood anecdotes add up to teeming crowds of bullying victims but few bullies to be found. If almost everyone was bullied to one degree or another, the one’s experience as a bullying victim probably shouldn’t be cited as some sort of special knowledge or insight, a gnostic revelation into the mindset of others.

Ha! As if anyone is actually bullied. Why they’re just making up those incidents. Like Ol’ Billy from school. Making up all those crazy stories about how I would beat him up all the time. Well, Billy, how are you going to tell those stories with a black eye? Yeah, as I said, nobody is really bullied and having your mom call my mom about it is snitching Billy and you know what happens to snitches.

But on a more serious note, I guess this is Phase II once it becomes painfully clear that the homophobic resistance to the Anti-Bullying laws is no longer even remotely sustainable without looking like the KKK. Arguing that we don’t need bullying laws because bullying victims just lie about bullies existing in order to punish those over-oppressed white christian conservative males… who just randomly happen to be bullies.

Also, bonus points for writing it literally one paragraph after your throwaway “wasn’t everyone a bully in high school” bit.

Nick Gillespie wrote about the perception of a “bullying crisis” in the Wall Street Journal last month:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

He quoted 6 straight paragraphs from the World’s Douchiest Libertarian (an impressive feat to say the least).

Yeah, no.

Douche Shorter (nope, still firmly jungle at this point):

• Faggy liberals actually doing the important leg work to force everyone to actually recognize bullying and stop turning a blind eye to it is proof that bullying is fixed now. And if it’s fixed now, it never existed. And if it never existed then trying to fix the bully problem is proof that the real bullied people are bullies unfairly being singled out over PC bullshit like bullying a kid for being a fag. Therefore, Anti-Bullying Measures must be opposed like the Liberal Fascism that they are. P.S. If kids want to stop getting beat up, they need to act less like pussy fags asking for a beating.

And that’s not so much shorter as verbatim.

… On an unrelated note, I should probably feature one of his articles somewhere in here.

But back to the original douchebag.

Of course, someone will read all this and insist it’s a defense of bullying or something.

Nah, really? Someone will read a giant mess of text supporting bullying while arguing that bullies are the real victims and read it as a defense of bullying? Who could do such a thing! Obviously only one group is so conniving, so manipulative, so completely hateful as to manage it.

That’s right, so called bullying victims. We’ve got our eyes on you. Our eyes on your increased onset of suicide and layers of bruises and emotional scars… um… Nick, help?

The knee-jerk accusation of insensitivity or support of cruel violent behavior is aggressive, coercive, abusive . . . if only we had a term for that sort of thing.

Ah of course! Bully victims (and those who recognize and speak out about it) are the real bullies!

Thanks for that Nick, I almost had sympathy for some of those buttheads!

And suddenly, it struck her, she not only possessed the dreaded Vagina, slayer of many a conservative, but she was also less than 100% white. The revelation was too great for her fragile mind to take and what remained of her sanity fled into the Mountains, never to be seen again.

Michelle Malkin, Inhuman Events:
Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be ‘Julia’

If we had to choose just one thing that defined right-wingers, it would have to be dumbassery, projection, secret goat fetishes inability to handle complexity. Or to be more specific, inability to handle the existence of options.

If someone tries to expand options or worse yet, acknowledge the infinite spectrum of human experience and try to cater to it, it becomes something wingnuts physically can’t handle or process in any way.

For in their mind, there is one unt only one way everyone is supposed to be. If that one way doesn’t fit your existence, you live the rest of your life in misery and pain and like it!

So if there’s any other option, any other door open, it can’t just be something that they continue waltz past obliviously. It instead becomes a threat. This new possibility is a wholesale elimination of the old possibility. Sowing the fields of the one option with salt so none may go wingnuttily into that good night.

Sure, it may seem like they can still do the same thing they always did. But as they force themselves into that old steel mold, they notice how the edges pinch and tear and how poor of a fit it was for them for all those years. And really isn’t that the same thing as complete destruction?

Damnit, they bled and suffered for those sunk costs and no liberal’s going to come around and make life better for some slackers who didn’t even earn it through tears, sweat, piss, and blood!

Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):

• Allowing women to have options other than serving as uneducated broodmares for our Financial Overlords is the real jackboot on their uteruses!

But let’s let our esteemed capo and Human Bile Factory explain her case.

Quick, hide under the covers.

Wow.

You know, it really would save more time if all wingnut screeds were just this line. It’s pretty much their sole point most of the time. But I suppose that would ill serve the snark industry as we devolved to just photoshopping pictures of butts and scrawling “LOL UR dum”.

The nation’s storyteller, Barack Obama, unveiled a frightening new fable on the Internet intended to scare women away from supporting fiscal conservatives in November.

Oh yes, women needed a reason to be scared away from conservatism this year. Why if Obama hadn’t posted a standard “my policies do X, my opponent’s policies would not” women wouldn’t have at all noticed the conservatives ranting about how sluts who take birth control should be raped to death, that OB/GYN care should come with mandatory rape, or otherwise devolving into CHUDs whenever the topic of Vagina-Americans comes up.

I guess that’s going to be the theme of 2012, finding ever more byzantine ways to explain how one single meaningless event or person is personally responsible for how the conservatives have managed to wear down their dog whistles and euphemisms so much, not even the fabled “low-information voter” is falling for it anymore.

Which means at least a 300% increase in the number of wingnuts writing their screeds while weeping their eyes out on how they’ve hitched their trailer to the plummeting comet of modern conservatism.

But as is increasingly common with Obama’s social media propaganda initiatives, “The Life of Julia” immediately flopped.

Wow, a throwaway message about policies flopped? Since the average standard of a web campaign ad is that its immediately skipped over, this must have like set people on fire or something. Is one of the slides about going back to the kitchen and making him a sandwich? Did he reveal the secret location of the “Whitey tape” and who he paid to kill Breitbart?

Don’t just leave me in suspense, Michelle!

Why?

Oh fuck you!

Sigh, guess I’ll just have to google this life-ending-

…

It’s just a bunch of wingnuts ranting and raving about it as if the very mention of a woman as a human being was actually physically destroying their soul.

I’m not kidding.

Hey, dipshits, if you want to pretend that your opponent’s campaign ad is meaningless and doesn’t leave an impact, the first thing you need to do is stop screaming on the ground as if it was Kryptonite.

Might take away from your desperate hand-waving. Just a little.

Because 1) self-sufficient women voters aren’t as sheeple-ish as Democratic strategists make them out to be, 2) conservative activists are overtaking Obama’s zombie army online, 3) non-delusional Americans don’t want cradle-to-grave utopians turning their country into the next Greece or Spain, and 4) responsible grownups are getting sick and tired of radical Saul Alinsky-style tall tales from the progressive Pied Piper.

Who can take a shit pile
Sprinkle it with lard
Cover it in a shiny wrapper and a piece of chard?
Oh, the dog whistle girl can!

And also, Greece and Spain. Those would be two countries currently being plummeted into the ground by those austerity measures, right? You know, the ones you’ve been trying to get to work here for 30 years and which have only caused our economy to lag so far behind, Slovakia is in danger of kicking our ass?

Using snazzy graphics and interactive slideshow features,

Holy, shitballs! He’s got the power of Flash! No one will be able to stop his mad reign now!

And apropos of nothing, but don’t you make your living on the web? Glad you don’t need to… you know… know anything about how it works to collect wingnut welfare.

BarackObama.com spins a glowing narrative of imaginary Julia’s life from age 3 to 67. But “Julia” is a pathetic figment of the progressive imagination.

Yes.

Yes, she isn’t real. She’s a metaphor for real women, you know, a literary device. Your teacher tried to educate you about them before you threw a brick at her head and called her a Commie Liberal Elitist? No? Nothing?

Do… do you often have difficulty telling real people from fake people?!?

Oh, really? How long?

Suddenly your entire career makes perfect sense.

She simply cannot function without the lifelong intervention of federal patriarchs.

You’re the Patriarchs! You! Even though we think the patriarchy is a good idea and women shouldn’t be allowed outside of the house without an owner… I mean protector! You’re the sexists! C’mon baby, we won’t hit you again, come back to the Republican Party, that guy’s a total loser… and did you notice he’s black?

And no one mention that when you expend five seconds of effort to google search and flip through the five second program yourself, it turns out that this patriarchal tool is a web-developer entrepreneur who’s only connection with Big Brother’s Death Orb is receiving substandard safety nets and a barely functional society when she needs them.

On that note, isn’t it sad that the Anti-government anarchists in charge of the Right have devolved the debate so far that we’re literally having a debate on whether or not we want our seniors to suffer and die the second they retire and whether or not having schools or a health care system are good things or not?

I don’t think the Right wants to win much more, less they find out exactly why most countries try and make sure the poor have something to lose if they decide to rise up and slaughter the rich for food.

Instead of two parents preparing her for school, Obama credits Head Start bureaucrats with ensuring that Julia is “ready to learn and succeed” in kindergarten.

Yup, Obama will personally put a bullet in the heads of every single parent, stealing their children to work in the Head Start Slave Factory creating TPS reports for our bureaucratic overlords.

Also, in addition to the lesson on metaphors that you missed, it appears you also missed the lesson on homonyms. Different other preparing there. More about preschooling to succeed at Kindergarten rather than making sure a suited gentleman with an ear-piece is there to force your kid on the prison bus to Guantanamo.

Instead of individual teachers, private mentors, home-school organizers or charter school leaders, Obama extols his federal Race to the Top program for implementing the high school “classes she needs to do well” in college.

Absolutely true. Obama’s Race to the Top program is very specific. By killing all teachers, private tutors, and private school attendees, Obama ensures that his Future Stormtroopers are hand selected from only the most “inner city” of schools. You know, where the kids with melanin are… cause they’re black… did… did we kill this dog whistle already?

And good job failing to hide that your real issue with Obama’s plan is that it might help start to offset the horrible skewed imbalance. The one you’ve set up so that only those who pay for it can get a quality education (thus lowering competition for some actually qualified poor kid to grab the job intended to a rich fuck-up).

Instead of thrift-minded families who save for their own kids’ higher educations (or who opt for non-college alternatives) and who encourage those kids to work in private-sector summer jobs, Obama praises his “opportunity tax credit” and Pell Grants for putting Julia through college.

Again, with Obama’s murderous elimination of parents and families. Jesus, Obama, just because you didn’t have a traditional family doesn’t mean you need to take it out on everybody else!

Now, if I was some idiot liberal who wasn’t hip to how the existence of a helping hand shoots those who can do without it in the face, I might note that thanks to the continuous underfunding of colleges by Republicans, there hasn’t been a student in a long damn time able to pay off a decent 4-year University just off summer jobs.

I might even note that limiting college advancement (which just so happens to now be a mandatory requirement for even entry level jobs) to those whose families have a couple of hundred thousand just lying around might just very well put a lie to the whole “meritocracy” shit.

But luckily, I’m not, so this makes perfect sense to me.

Instead of acknowledging how costly Obamacare mandates have caused individual-market health care insurers to drop plans altogether, Obama promotes the government-manufactured umbilical cord tethering “children” like Julia to their parents’ health care plans until age 26.

Yeah! How dare Obama allow people to remain on their parent’s health insurance unless they have their own insurance (by being lucky enough to have a job that actually includes it (rarer than unicorns into bisexual horn play, believe you me))!

That’s like Triple Hitler, with Stalin on the top!

Also, private insurers dropping their clients for arbitrary reasons that place their profit margins over what is best for the customers who have bought their services already?!?

Why, if there wasn’t a better argument for the continued lack of genuine public health care for all people, I’ve never heard one!

Instead of accepting that the costs and consequences of a woman’s sexual choices should be a matter of personal responsibility, Big Daddy Obama heralds his religious liberty-crushing birth control/abortion mandate for allowing Julia to “focus on her work instead of worrying about her health.”

Instead of arguing that a woman should keep the aspirin between the knees or learn to like the taste of cunt, Obama in his paternalist patriarchal sexism thinks that women are actual people whose health care shouldn’t be held hostage to whether a bunch of panty-sniffers think she’s a slut.

Cause not letting us own our employees by demanding that everyone let us dictate their lives based on our personal religious post-hoc justifications for raw hatred of Vagina-Americans is exactly the same as genuine oppression.

Because really, is their any form of oppression and robbing of liberty greater than preventing powerful white men from dominating other people to make their dicks feel harder? Truly women couldn’t possibly begin to understand their pain.

Despite the fact that most private health care plans already covered maternal screenings, prenatal care and related screenings before Obamacare passed, the president attributes Julia’s pregnancy well-being to the law.

Well, yes, at private prices. Expensive private prices. In fact, that particular gulf is exactly why we have a first-world infant and maternal mortality rate for white women and a third-world infant and maternal mortality rate for black women.

Though she makes a good point here. We asked before if there was a worse oppression than not letting someone oppress someone else. And here we see the one thing that’s worse. Not forcing poor mothers to die so that rich mothers can feel more special about their routine preventative care.

I mean, why would you even bother having a baby if you aren’t able to enjoy a young poor mother dying on the operating table from preventable pregnancy complications?

Is there no sacred act of parenthood that Obama won’t try and destroy?

And it’s not local sovereignty or financial discipline that results in better schools for Julia’s new son, “Zachary.” Nope. It’s Obama’s “investments” in education and “programs like Race to the Top.” (Is there nothing Race to the Top can’t do?)

Um, how is “financial discipline” supposed to lead to better schools? By turning all the teachers to dominatrices with an accountant fetish?

Have you finally run out of ways to try to argue that eliminating public education will improve it?

“Under President Obama,” the campaign web feature then crows, “Julia starts her own web business. She qualifies for a Small Business Administration loan, giving her the money she needs to invest in her business. President Obama’s tax cuts for small businesses like Julia’s help her to get started. She’s able to hire employees, creating new jobs in her town and helping to grow the local economy.”

In the real world, according to Dun and Bradstreet, the SBA supported fewer than 62,000 small business loans: a measly 0.2 percent of the nation’s 27.5 million small businesses. The vast majority of entrepreneurs get their start without the SBA’s “help” and want only one thing: for Obama and his wealth-confiscators to leave them the heck alone.

Yup, small businesses just want Obama to stop calling them at three in the morning with his “brilliant” ideas on improving their profit margin. They heard them the first time, Obama! And they told him the first time that genetically-engineered wombats just isn’t in the budget! When will that guy take a fucking hint?

On a more serious note, this is why you don’t compromise with these animals Obama. Because they will reduce your programs to near uselessness and then use their own “victories” to argue that you did nothing.

But hey, it’s a small issue, and besides, the real issue is obviously just stopping those late night phone calls. Small businesses certainly don’t need a robust safety net to take care of entrepreneurs in the very likely scenario of their business failing. Nah, just leave them alone and they’ll thrive, like they are in laissez faire Denmark… wait.

As soon as Obama publicized “The Life of Julia” on the web,

Aw, not even going to try and tackle the medicare issue? C’mon, you’ve already jumped full in on the contraception crazy train that’s seeing women flee your party in droves! Don’t you want to join your friends on the Ban Medicare float to see if you can get rid of your elderly voters as well?

conservative activists swarmed Twitter to provide real-world counter-narratives.

The wingnuts apparently have got their marching orders to make a lot of noise hoping that might distract people from the fact that Obama ate their lunch on both the women’s rights issues and the “government matters” issues at the same time.

“I’m no Julia,” one wrote. “As a small-business owner I’m being taxed to death. I need the (government) to get out of my way and let me make money.” Another young conservative female tweeted: “As a woman business owner I’m offended that POTUS thinks I need him to survive and thrive.” Conservative writer Kemberlee Kaye added: “What the Julia example really shows is the Democrat ideal. Complete and total reliance on the government.”

But hey, at least they managed to swarm twitter to demonstrate how thoroughly they could miss the point.

Also love the middle response which is more revilement at the idea that Obama’s blackity black blackness might dare touch them in some small way and thus taint their pure Aryan soul.

Yeah, the next couple of decades of demographic movement is not gonna be kind to you, is it?

My story? I’ve founded three web ventures over the past eight years without a penny of taxpayer money or government venture socialism.

Three web ventures huh? Yes, luckily your web ventures relied on absolutely nothing built by taxpayer money or government programs designed on providing something for everyone at their own expense.

Well, maybe I shouldn’t snark. Maybe she single-handedly created DARPA-net and expanded it into a free world-wide service open to anyone and protected from predatory private firms that want to control it.

You know, I want a magic button that deprives people who say they are self-made and didn’t rely on no government, etc etc, of all government created services, programs, technologies, and accomplishments they regularly rely on without notice. Let them live their John Galt fantasy for just a day without all the infrastructure they take for granted and want to get out of maintaining.

I’m not thinking it would be illuminating for the wingnuts. Obviously they are immune to basic reality by this point, but it would be worth it to see their smug entitled asses have to intellectually grapple with what being legitimately self-sustaining means.

And hey, if I’m really lucky, the shock of doing actual work for the first time in their life will kill them.

We free-market-centered small-business women can “grow the local economy” and raise our children and improve our schools just fine without the meddling, patriarchal hand of President Obama taking credit for our every last success.

Well, great, then you don’t personally need those resources you over-entitled wingnut welfare receiving hypocrite.

Doesn’t mean that everyone else needs to go without it. I don’t personally need the electricity infrastructure that goes to your house or the garbage men that come by your house to collect the various dead bodies of the families you eviscerate and eat, but it doesn’t mean that such services are unneeded.

Newsflash, the world doesn’t revolve around you, where everybody only needs what you personally need only when you need it. Fuck, I’ve met 15 year olds who’ve read Ayn Rand for the first time that have more empathy and self-awareness than you.

After hyperventilating for months about the Republican “war on women,”

Yes, the one that’s still going on and which the Right has decided to continue with the screeching Pavlovian response to “The Life of Julia”? The one showing that as long as the subject can be presumed to have a cunt, Republicans will stop at nothing to destroy it?

You had a response to that at any point other than “I’m hoping to get a position as an Aunt in the Republic of Gilead”?

Democratic new-media gurus inadvertently have exposed the real Barack Obama: a chauvinistic control freak who would tether every last woman and child to his ever-expanding, budget-busting Nanny State.

Yes, we have our knockdown punch that will IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION our sexism all over Obama’s face!

All we need to do is point out that by giving women other options besides “get born rich or die”, he’s really demanding to control everyone’s lives by eliminating the painful uncomfortable options that are still available for the masochistically inclined! It’s foolproof!

I mean, what are women going to do? See through our transparent bullshit? Pah! I’d like to see them try! Seriously, how do they manage to do anything with those tiny lady brains?

Right? Right? … Please say I’m an honorary man now… I … I don’t want to go back in the cage.

Mamas, for the sake of your family’s freedom and our republic’s survival, don’t let your babies grow up to be “Julia.”

So, basically, be scared, dog whistles, IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION, and a complete failure to understand how options work. Oh, and let’s not forget the Social Darwinism that argues if you don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars lying in your mattress, you might as well give up now, you sow.

Still…

A bit light for Malkin. I didn’t see one rant about countertops or even a good bat beheading with her teeth.

I guess, it’s hard to have your heart in something when its obviously a mandate from above to try and do something, anything to try and prevent the complete demographic fail that 4 years of letting your party’s id fly free has wrought.

Turns out all dem minorities add up to a pretty substantial majority when you add them all up. You could suck it up, try and repair bridges and actually grow as people.

Ha! Yeah, no, throwing any shit you can against the wall and seeing what sticks to try to drown out the other side really is your only option these days.

Don’t worry, we’ll cheer you on as you slip beneath the waves of your increasing irrelevance.

I really was going to give America’s Dumbest Homosexual™ a rest for a bit, until I saw his latest efflorescence of internalized homophoia in which he takes a look at the bright side of the vote in North Carolina. Dan does this in a post titled — and you can’t make this shit up — “Where Real Marriages Find Their Support.” At this point, when Blatt is referring to North Carolina as “where real marriages find their support,” you have to ask yourself whether he is really some kind of performance artist on the payroll of the American Family Association.

To make his point he cites a “beautiful commentary” on Facecrook from a college classmate

Regarding North Carolina, my second thought is… I have been with Eric for nearly seventeen years. Whatever we have we got from ourselves, our families, and our friends. Whatever we still need we will get from those same sources. At this point, I honestly cannot imagine feeling any more married than I already feel.

It now seems perfectly clear that if some Republican pistol-whipped Dan while calling him a depraved cock-sucking fairy, Dan would pick himself up, prance off as fast as he could to the nearest computer, and write a post explaining how being pistol whipped while being called a depraved cock-sucking fairy was actually a character building experience.

Shorter Emperor Bill Kristaltine, The Weekly Slander
The Cultural Divide on Marriage

• In general people who want to take away the rights of a minority are nicer people than the minority whose rights are being taken away.

The best part of Kristol’s putrid regurgitation masquerading as thought is the evidence he proffers for his startling conclusion that bigots are nicer people than their victims. (Ja, that Reinhard Heydrich was a real mensch, completely unlike those mean and nasty Jews that he had to, er, deal with in Prague.) The evidence? It was of the “I can’t resist adding the thought” variety, i.e., of the “I pulled it out of my ass and am waving it around like a black truffle” variety.

Oh, and guess who cited Kristol’s post and added a school-girl mash note to Kristol to it? Hint: if he were a turkey, his favorite holiday would be Thanksgiving.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

Dan Blatt, that foul excrescence on the gay body politic, otherwise known as The Gay Quisling or America’s Dumbest Homosexual™, was perhaps in a bit of a quandary when Obama came out in favor of gay marriage. After all, Blatt had been humping the argument that Obama betrayed his gay Democratic supporters by not supporting gay marriage harder than a meth-addled hillbilly on a blow-up doll. Here he is is saying Obama is taking gay marriage advocates for fools. And here is the Repub-licker Dan criticizing Obama for not supporting gay marriage and “playing political football with gay Americans.”

So, what’s our highly-principled Dan doing now that Obama has said he supports gay marriage? Oh, don’t be silly, you know exactly what he’s doing: he’s criticizing Obama for being in favor of gay marriage. Now, the Blatt Flacker says, he’s “trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to his gay supporters.” He’s just doing it “to quiet a political firestorm” among gay supporters. Wait, wasn’t it just seconds ago, that Dan was popping the pins holding up his Depends over how Obama wasn’t paying attention to his gay supporters? And now Obama is the worst President ever because he’s paying attention to his gay supporters?

This all just goes to show that Dan is so deranged about Obama that Obama could personally invite Dan to the White House for an orgy with Dan’s beloved Ken Mehlman in the Lincoln Bedroom and Dan would write a post criticizing him for it. We’ve known that Dan would criticize anything Obama did back when he took Obama to task for a federal regulation that would let gay people visit their partners in hospitals. I said then, and I say it again because it always gets Dan’s Beavis and Butthead commenters like V the K and North Dallas Forty worked up into a prissy hissy fit, the following:

Permit me to stop joking around for a moment and to say something directly for a change. Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of shit who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a cock-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a shit about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. Fuck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

On re-reading this, I actually think I was being too kind.

Shorter Mara Zebest, The American Übermenschen:
Strange Anomalies in the Famous Situation Room Photo

Shorter Joseph Curl, The Moonie Times
Hip-hop legend MCA passes on; Obama says not a word

• The failure of our rap-loving mulatto President to say anything in public about the death of a white rapper is all the proof I need of his undeniable prejudice against all white people.

File the latest bout of logorrhea masquerading as political commentary from Moonie Times columnist Joseph Curl in the “Heads I Win, Tails Obama Loses” folder, which already is chock full of other examples, most of which run along these lines: if Obama eats the fried chicken, he’s lazy and shiftless; if he passes it up, he’s arrogant and uppity.

There is one amusing aspect to wingnuts playing HIW,TOL — namely that it often requires them to tread into cultural territory with which they are manifestly unfamiliar, e.g., to become an instant expert on Negro basketballers in March Madness or a connoisseur of jerk sauces or some such. So here we have the spectacle of a guy who manifestly spends his time watching the Time-Life DVDs of old Lawrence Welk shows professing some enthusiasm for hip-hop. Right. Next you’ll see me writing on some arcane aspects of sexual prestidigitation by geisha girls in Japanes bordellos or the finer literary points of Fifty Shades of Grey.

Okay, so let’s roll the train wreck:

This column is about politics. Today, it’s not. Still, there’s Watergate, Paul Revere, Edward R. Murrow, fighting for your right, so, kinda still.

Huh? Did the editors at the Moonie Times take off for a day of hot tubs, cocaine and hookers in Reno and leave the IT department staff behind to edit the newspaper’s columnists? Oh wait, that would assume that this is worse than usual for the Moonie Times. My bad.

Adam Nathaniel Yauch died Friday. If you’re age 16-66 — maybe 106 — you know him as MCA, one-third of the Beastie Boys. He was 47. Way too young. But gone.

OK, so what was your first clue that everything Curl knows about Yauch came from Wikipedia? Using Yauch’s middle name, maybe? Thinking that 16-year-olds think the Beastie Boys are cool?

Now, half-white Barack Obama (exactly my age) didn’t say a word, even though he was talking to college kids that day, but make no mistake, MCA was no Jay-Z or Kanye West.

Okay, I’m still trying to unpack where half-white came from or why Curl, while putting down his dog-whistle for a moment, didn’t just go all the way and call Obama that “ni**er.” But then he picks the dog whistle right back up and starts blowing it like crazy with the reference to Jay-Z and Kanye: presumably underlining the difference between bling-encrusted, tooth-jeweled, gang-gesturing, white-girl-dissing bad (Negro) rappers and good (White) rappers.

But nothing from the first half-white, half-black president (MSM has made him black — he’s not; he’s half-and-half. No, Trayvon Martin wouldn’t have looked like his son.)

This creepy discourse on racial purity and blood lines is meant, I suppose, to underline that Obama is not just a racist but a race traitor too — at least to his white race — which makes him even worse than normal blacks who are racist against, and oppress horribly, a race to which they do not belong.

The president took time from his busy schedule to comment on the passing of black musicians. When Whitney Houston, a longtime crack addict, died this year, the White House put out a statement.

Oh, the butthurt, the butthurt! Think of all the white, drug-free kids who will hang themselves in despair because the President made them feel worthless when he mentioned a black crack ho and not a white guy!!

And when accused pedophile and drug addict Michael Jackson died in 2009, the White House weighed in with the president’s thoughts.

That’s it. That’s the last straw. I can’t wade in this muck anymore. I’m going to take a shower, chug a bottle of tequila, snort about a pound of crushed Oxycontin, and try to forget I ever read any of this.

Organic Unit Failing! Dictionary program melting! Words ceasing to matter! Cyberman is are good intellectual! Cyberman Master Squirrel of Filthy Humanatees! ERROROROROROROR!

Christopher Chantrill, American Wanker:
If Conservatives Are Social Darwinists, Then…

Shorter (or the last port before the Jungle):

• I don’t understand what words mean.

Yeah, that’s right. You might be sitting there going, no, that can’t be right, there’s going to be a second shorter talking about how he’s just whining about a new tax on goat molesters (leave Mickey Kaus alone).

Nope.

We are instead watching the complete collapse of a man into sub-literacy. So drowned in wingnuttery, that even base coherence becomes an impossibility. It may possibly the most embarrassing attempt at intellectual rigor and analysis seen yet on this site. Yeah, even above “national socialist has socialist in it, therefore nazis were communists”.

Polite people might turn away from this self-destruction, out of pity or sad respect to the ways a person’s mind can shatter and break.

Luckily, we’re terrible terrible people, instead. So, let’s dive into the comedy goldmine that is the death of this man’s last remaining neuron.

That President Obama certainly has a way with words.

Well glad someone here does.

The other day he called Paul Ryan’s House-passed budget “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Does he mean that Ryan’s budget is wearing a burqa?

… Chris? … Why is your neck smoking Chris? Are… Are you all right?

Wow! Forget trying to unpack those sentences, let’s just try to unpack what loose approximation of logic produced them.

Let’s see, um, social Darwinism, randomly capitalized Darwinism, dog whistle at Darwinists, because anyone who believes in evolution is against God, and if they’re against God then they are on the side of every other non-God side including rival religions. Therefore Burqa-wearing Muslims, because Burqas and Al Queda are the only meaningful signs of Islam?

Ooh, or maybe it’s “thinly veiled”, therefore veil, therefore burqa, because god forbid a wingnut tell the rather dramatic difference between a veil and a burqa especially with regards to the “thin” part, not to mention the complete inability to understand how idioms work.

Ooh, or maybe, budget starts with bu-, burqa starts with bu-, therefore Hitler Osama Obama Antichrist Satan. Take that liberals!

Anyway,

Yeah, I’d eel away from that one too if I were you.

he prompted Catholic Rep. Ryan (R-WI) to take his budget to Georgetown University, where the congressman lectured the profs at that Catholic university about solidarity and subsidiarity on the off-chance they hadn’t been reading their papal encyclicals.

Um, you’re supposed to eel away to something that’s less stupid. Less stupid.

Okay, so Obama is using his mind-control powers to force Rep. Ryan into doing standard congressperson things. Because he pointed out that Ryan’s Love letter to Ayn Rand is you know, Social Darwinist. Which somehow led him to yelling at Catholics to be even more right-wing shills working solely for the benefit of the Republican Party, as is written in the Bible of Wingnuttery.

We always talk about the day when wingnut writing becomes nothing more than dog whistles and DFH-punching barely strung together with conjunctions, but I don’t think any of us expected to actually see it.

Not even the Time Cube guy at his most word salad, could produce an opening paragraph less devoid of even the barest glimpse of cognition.

How do sentences work? Do words have meaning? I don’t know, but immigrants sure do need to master advanced English before they are allowed to participate in American society.

Social Darwinism has been an all-purpose pejorative ever since the thinly-veiled anathematist Richard Hofstadter wrote Social Darwinism in American Thought in the 1940s.

Now, you or I, being the Ivory Tower snobs we are, may assume when we see words, that perhaps they might mean something. That they actually might have a definition, have a cultural context, and for a rare few, may even represent well documented philosophical ideas. That said philosophical idea in this case may represent a very popular philosophy championed and critiqued from about 15 minutes after Darwin penned his biological magnum opus, which has just so happened to have been championed by conservatives of pretty much every age. And that said idea might be about arguing that the deaths and misery that racism, classism, and sexism produce are more about the “strong” (just so happening to be made up of white upper-class underachievers) “proving their genetic superiority” by their unearned social standing. But Chris understands that we only think that, because of our snooty intellectual elitism. Like words are anything other than a random assortment of syllables you throw as weapons at your opponent. Like when we call them anti-intllectual.

Also, yes, I don’t know why a man with a German last name who identified as a Jew would be at all down on Social Darwinism, especially in the 1940s. No reason I can think of other than him being a mean old person who just randomly hates for no reason. Also, good invented word there, totally doesn’t make you look like a five-year-old having a temper tantrum because your mom caught you trying to steal a cookie from the cookie jar.

He also wrote Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. So you can see what he was all about.

Being against dumbasses who misunderstand scientific principles in favor of bumper sticker fodder like “evolution is the favoring of the strong over the weak”?

Also, it looks like wingnuts have given up on trying to defend against the Anti-Intellectual charge and have decided to just adopt it as an identity and argue that anyone talking about it is just being mean to their special needs enclave of poop throwers.*

Today we would call him a thinly-veiled enemy of civility.

… Did you just “work the refs” about a 70 year old author you just randomly referenced out of nowhere?

Uh, no one cares about whether or not a guy who’s been fucking dead for over 40 years said something that you’ve retroactively decided hurts your fee-fees.

It’s like the wingnuts have gotten so mindnumbingly dumb that they’ve forgotten how their own bullshit tactics work.

But his writing obviously had its intended effect.

Yes, this one man is solely responsible for a well-known, well-documented suite of social theories. Just like Darwin is the only person with any possible evidence of evolution’s validity, that one Climatology institute that got hacked was the only source of climate change data in the world, and Saul Alinsky is personally responsible for every protest that has ever happened anywhere.

It’s almost like there’s some horde of people with some sort of “anti” position to the academic principles and those who hold them, say “intellectuals” for instance. And said people try to reduce these well-proven theories to one person or one writing, so as to make their own poorly sourced, laughably ignorant rebuttals seem more on par.

If only there was a name for this phenomenon!

In Freethinkers, a mindless liberal screed about secularism, Susan Jacoby anathematizes Herbert Spencer, “who applied Darwin’s principles of natural selection to the social as well as the natural world — a mistake Darwin never made.”

Y.

E.

S.

Yes.

YES! That would be the entirely accurate rebuttal to the incredibly stupid philosophy of Social Darwinism. With maybe one addition noting that they don’t even remotely understand the principle of natural selection they were trying to turn into a social engineering tool, reducing it to laughably inaccurate “strong beats weak” horseshit.

And not to be rude, but wasn’t the sole approximation of a point you’ve been making so far been the transparent lie that “Social Darwinism is just a meanie liberal word that liberals made up to be mean”. Cause it sure seems like you’re setting up a defense of Social Darwinism in the next paragraph.

Well, why not? Surely, a theory of the evolution of social institutions is of vital interest to humans,

Yup. Thought as much.

Sure, it’s been dissected as the heartless cruel philosophy it is for over a century and was central to one of the worst atrocities of the last century, but damn it, you just can’t let it go. It’s like an underaged prostitute you’ve picked up on the shores of Guam. You’ve strangled the life out of him, but you just can’t bear to pull out yet until you’re sure you’ve gotten every last death spasm.

especially right now, when European social democracy is in thinly-veiled collapse.

Gee, wonder which economic philosophy is fucking that chicken, Chris.

Oh, right, this wasn’t meant to mean anything, but rather just be a hanging dog whistle about Europe bad, Islamic hordes taking over, socialism leads to ruin, etc…

But liberals like Susan Jacoby know that liberals don’t believe in social evolution.

Well, no, not natural social evolution. Because that would be fucking stupid.

Social, human created institutions don’t evolve naturally, but drift and adapt due to human activities changing, adapting, improving, or even being destroyed. There’s actually an entire discipline of egghead intellectual elitists who study that phenomenon. They’re called anthropologists, and to a lesser extent sociologists.

But sorely-needed vocabulary lesson aside, I’m wondering why this sentence is here. I mean, we were just ranting about the perfidy of Europe and-

They believe in intelligent design,

Ah, revenge dog whistle. Right.

You repeat our attempted euphemism of creationism that we made a national joke by rejecting basic science out of ignorance and fear. Therefore, you’re the real stupid people who believe in a disproved theory! NYAH! Take that.

So, what’s the argument? You deny Social Darwinism, just like we deny actual evolution, which we call Darwinism, therefore… false equivalence?!?

in accordance with the ancient syllogism you can probably find somewhere in Aristotle: All liberals are intelligent. Liberals advocate big government. Therefore, big government is intelligent.

…

I’m impressed.

That’s at least an entire dimension stupider than I was expecting.

Okay, to recap the last two paragraphs. Social Darwinism doesn’t exist and is just a mean phrase made up by mean people who were mean. But Social Darwinism is totally a valid theory on par with natural evolution. Also it totally doesn’t misinterpret the ideas of evolution… which is in itself bad and wrong for being secular. And secularism is bad and is the reason Europe is starting to tailspin (nothing to do with our austerity bullshit, nope). So therefore, liberals are the stupidheads who believe in Intelligent Design, which we believe in for non-stupid reasons, but is bad when we apply it to you. And it’s because you’re the stupid ones running low on logic and think that because you’re intelligent and Big Government is… design??? And this silly construction I made up is totally something liberals made up to sound intelligent, which they’re not, even though they are elitist eggheads who try to link stuff to Aristotle.

…Yeah.

I mean, sure, IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION, but you pretty much couldn’t have a wingnut post without that, but beyond that, it’s just… breathtaking. What do words mean? How are arguments formed? How do liberal elitist eggheads manage to put each leg through the pants legs without getting it stuck on their backs?!? Huh, liberals?!? Answer me that, if you’re so damn smart! Thought as much.

A corollary of this Aristotelian truth is that only liberals can intelligently design modern social institutions, and that the complexity of modern society demands that an educated elite of intelligent liberals be empowered to rule the less intelligent.

You know when you’re tutoring a kid who’s writing an essay and trying to ape “fancy intellectual speech” without understanding it and so it’s just this unnecessarily stilted language with all these poorly used “big words”?

I don’t know why I was suddenly reminded of that.

So, the Aristotle dig is now proudly his again, because Aristotle was a smart guy, donchaknow. And now, mean old liberals are “designing” social institutions, which being human creations, can only be designed, seeing as they don’t fucking arise naturally without human input or upkeep.

And of course, liberals want to rule the less intelligent. Say by arguing that they have earned said right by natural right. Say by arguing that as the strongest candidate for the job, it is natural they take the highest stage. That they are more fit for the job than the uneducated masses.

What’s the word when IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION causes you to try and argue your opponent is doing the thing that totally doesn’t exist, but you totally think is a peachy swell idea that makes your opponent dumb for denying it, when he isn’t using that bad idea to be evil bad guys?

Besides coked out, of course.

Without this intelligent design, liberals believe, individuals will find themselves “on their own” and reduced to helplessness and marginalization.

To illustrate this point, they may point out a window at the real world.

Say, directly out a literal window to a homeless man picking through cans on the side of the road hoping to find enough to beat the reaper for one more day.

And I could totally counter that… one of these days… Hey look, some more dog whistles!

Thus, liberals know what to do about senior health care when intelligently designed Medicare is about to go belly-up. Just repeat after Nancy: “Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it!”

Medicare bad, Nancy Pelosi haz vagina, social engineering of senior care, ooh, keep government out of medicare!

Now, sure, Republicans do actually want to end Medicare, have proudly ran on wanting to end Medicare, and in fact Ol’ Chris here is pretty much arguing to let it fall and die as the solution to … it’s totally going to fall and die on its own if we don’t kill it (not actually true, but then if you wanted a relationship with reality in a wingnut post, you shouldn’t have slept with its sister). But see, it’s Big Government and Big Government always fails, because er… uh… repeal Medicare! And seniors, stop noticing that we’re trying to do it!

There are some people — they now call themselves “progressives,” but I think a more apt term would be “witch-burners” — who are even more of a throwback than the Intelligent Designers.

And now we’re here.

See what I mean about nothing really flowing from anything else. There’s this constant inability to understand what any of the words mean and each sentence is off on its own adventure of dog whistles only connected to anything else by the loosest thread of shared words… words with entirely different meanings depending on the sentence.

Today’s sentence is about revenge. See, mean old “secularists” have been pointing out that religion-obsessed fuckwads are kinda backwards. That they don’t believe in evolution, preferring creationism tarted up like an uptown whore and that they often demonize non-Christian groups or targeted minorities based entirely on their perceived tribal identities. Say, like queers or atheists, or the aforementioned secularists from above. Someone to see as villainous simply from that identification.

It’s important to understand that now at the most lucid point for what follows to even approach understanding.

They believe that corporations are possessed by evil demons and are responsible for poisoning the air and the water.

Evidence of a single liberal of any meaningful prominence arguing that corporations are possessed by evil demons… wait… Chris, do you think corporations are actual people that can be possessed by demons? Sorry, getting distracted by the stupid. But yeah, any evidence that any liberals believe the demon part? None.

But see, conservatives regularly argue that groups they don’t like are possessed by demons. From homosexuals to atheists to muslims to pretty much every liberal group really.

And thus it’s necessary to throw out that completely batshit wrench out there to prevent the line from reading corporations are responsible for poisoning the air and the water. And he could try to hand-wave that away, but thanks to the existence of LA, that is about as impossible of a task as believing that Christopher Chantrill is intellectual and articulate.

Ditto oil companies, which are poisoning the fracking gas wells.

I don’t think there’s a single liberal who’s worried that oil companies are poisoning the gas wells. Not that that would really be a problem as no one alive for much longer drinks motor oil.

I think they’re more concerned with the poisoning of the ocean. Well, I say concerned, but more furious really. Well, not so much furious as homicidal. How’d you like a shrimp cocktail, Chris? I caught it fresh off the Louisiana coast just for you.

Ditto greedy insurance companies that prevent us from getting affordable health care.

I love that this one is on the list. I mean, with the others, he at least made some form of edit to hide how stupid they were. Sure, they were a demon possession bit of projection and a complete failure to understand how poisoning works, but still… actual effort. This one? Nope, raw form. It’s just nakedly, painfully obviously true, thrown in there as if believing in a reality so stark that even middle class wingnuts can’t ignore it, was something only religious zealots would believe in.

These witch-hunters dream of a gigantic auto da fe at Wall Street and Broad, in which the corporations and fundamentalists will be burned at the stake and purged of their demons in a great struggle of the 99% against the 1%.

No, we dream of cliffotines. Get it right!

Also, weren’t we originally talking about Social Darwinism? Which, speaking of, wouldn’t the rich pissing off the poor to the point that they revolt and kill the rich also be the “natural” evolution of social institutions demanded of Social Darwinism?

President Obama’s problem with Social Darwinism is that conservatives use it to promote an “on your own” society.

That would be most people’s problem with Social Darwinism. That it finds perfectly acceptable a large number of dead bodies as long as the “natural order” is upheld. That the suffering and deaths of those left-behind are things to be lauded and that any attempt to address this problem is to “go against the natural order” and try and preserve the “weak” to the detriment of the “gene pool”.

I’d go on, but if I do I’m going to be sued for copyright infringement by a mustachioed gentleman with terrible hair that Jonah Goldberg insists was a communist.

Like many liberals, he has studiously avoided studying what conservatives actually believe. He would rather parrot what Hofstadter — or was it Niebuhr? — taught him. Real conservatives believe something different.

See, that’s what makes this so much sadder than it already is. I’m sure, he thinks he’s pulling a quick three card monte and playing fast and loose with definitions in order to fleece the rubes, but what he delivers is something written in an entirely new language with no connection to anything. A completely empty space.

By the time he gets to the, ha ha liberals, obvious lie, PROJECTION stage, he’s already drunk and dying in the gutter no longer sure of what his original goal was.

All he had to do was go: Obama thinks that the Ryan plan is Social Darwinism, well, liberals are the real Social Darwinists. That’s it.

He’s desperately trying to throw one last elbow in to keep himself in the game, but he’s already on a three-day bender and gone, never to return to this world again.

Real conservatives believe that the real “on your own” system is big-government liberalism. That’s because big government hollows out the “little platoons” of society; it orders people out of the face-to-face neighborhood into a wind-swept plaza dominated by the mega-structures of big government. Believe me: you don’t want to be on that plaza when the Fannie Mae skyscraper is toppling over.

You may think that this mass of random syllables always existed in its current amorphous blob shape, that it couldn’t have possibly stemmed from some sort of coherent thought process. And I’ll grant you that last one. There never was coherence.

But I firmly believe that this once had some sort of purpose. Perhaps in an early draft or maybe in the morass of Christopher’s robotic diodes before virus-laden porn software did its syphilitic work.

He really wanted this to be an “in your face” moment. Ha, liberals with your “every person needs to be taken care of by the institution we invent to take care of all of us” shtick, looking down on us just because we like to cackle as we see the single mother slip through the cracks and starve to death. Well, we’ll see who’s laughing when I note how it’s you who are the leavers-behind-ist-nesses! Yeah!

But sadly it’s drowned out by buzzwords to the point that there’s nothing left. There’s no there there. Big Government leaves people on their own because… Big Government Bad! Fannie Mae! Occupy protesters camped on plazas! Rubbing elbows with filthy disgusting poor people instead of cowering in the suburbs pretending that the world begins at your house and ends at the nearest Walmart!

Catholics like John Paul II and Benedict XVI want to protect modern man from the mega-structures with “solidarity” and “subsidiarity.” Solidarity, according to Paul Ryan, is “the virtue that does not divide society into classes and groups, but builds up the common good of all.” Subsidiarity is the notion that “matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized competent authority.”

And we’re back to the Catholics. I guess, our Cyberman Chantrill must be a Pope fondler. Good for him, glad that “solidarity” and “subsidiarity” have been well taking care of all those kids raped and abandoned by their Church. Not to mention the loyal third-world nations, which increasingly make up the majority of Catholic memberships. Sure, glad they aren’t being economically abandoned while Pope Nazi jumps on the austerity bandwagon because Dirty Fucking Hippies make his balls itch.

And we know what Americans do when big government leaves them “on their own.” They get together and build a thick safety net of voluntary associations. Europeans? Not so much.

What?!? The austerity measures, promised to solve everything and give Europeans a free cake, turns out to just rob them of a safety net and leave nothing in its place?!?

It’s almost like those people have been left on their own or something!

Glad that doesn’t happen in U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! What with our thick safety net of voluntary associations working tirelessly to ensure that no one ever falls through the cracks or becomes impoverished.

Oh sure, commie ghetto countries like Denmark that reject all Social Darwinism and austerity, may suffer and wither with their guaranteed housing, guaranteed living wage, free healthcare (including dental and psychological care), and robust public transportation network allowing all but the most damaged and unreachable to meet their basic needs with nothing to show for it but a booming economy unaffected by the global financial collapse.

But America didn’t go out like that. Thanks to the occasional food kitchen and battered women’s shelter (well, until the Right manages to shut those down too), no one ever goes hungry, unable to feed or clothe their kids, unable to afford life-saving medication, or unable to afford adequate housing or psychological care.

Why, with our abundance of non-government-tainted support (because coming together for the public good only counts if it’s not called government), it’s no wonder that we have the most healthy economy and the most healthy populace and a thriving infrastructure second to none. Why occasionally, we even nearly resemble a first-world nation! On a good day!

Take that Fag-mark!

The reason why conservatives are thinly-veiled Social Darwinists is rather obvious.

Okay, fine, words don’t mean anything, sentences don’t need to be connected, and arguments don’t need to be actually coherent to prove hippies need to be punched.

I’ll believe all of it if you just PICK A FUCKING STANCE AND STICK WITH IT. Social Darwinism. Is it fictional, is it a terrible thing that liberals believe, or is it a proud philosophy you stand behind 100%?

Pick ONE! Any one! Even if it’s just that Social Darwinism is a space pig. But for the love of Bob, just pick a stance and stay with it longer than half a bloody sentence. You’re giving me whiplash over here.

We believe that the most practical, most humane way of dealing with change is to admit that a natural selection process directs the evolution of social institutions.

So the reason that your policies are thinly-veiled Social Darwinism is because you are Social Darwinists doing a piss-poor job of hiding it?

Well, slap my cheeks and call me Rudolph, I didn’t see that one coming.

Were you hoping this admission would seem less silly coming after 8 paragraphs of highly concentrated word salad? Cause… no. No it did not.

Social institutions that fail to provide for the common good will end up extinct, be they nation-states, churches, corporations, or labor unions.

Or say… governments? Actually, I think governments is the only one on the list that this actually applies to. Because when the others don’t provide for the common good, they just shrug their shoulders and say its someone else’s job, usually the government’s. Why should they the hard-working priests or CEOs drain their coffers to take care of the useless dregs who don’t even have the good manners to fund the plate or buy their products? Especially when even their own government has given up on them?

Oh right, Governments are Space Lizards that rape Conservatives right in their logic centers (leaving them unable to pen anything other than Dadaist cries for help like this) rather than a social institution.

A society with a thick safety net of voluntary institutions lets ordinary people adapt to economic and social change by joining voluntary social institutions that seem to be thriving.

… And this puts food on the table or a roof over one’s head… how exactly? Let’s see, the local Red Hat Society got a huge windfall from Mrs. Peterson. I better join them and that will totally take care of Little Timmy’s cancer treatment. Hey, my workplace is doing great at the moment, you just need to join their Member’s Program and that’ll totally stop your husband from beating you!

As long as you’re with winners, nothing bad can ever happen to you. Okay… it will, but at least the institution will be thriving after you rid them of your extraneous existence.

See, liberals, and you call us conservatives uncaring.

We care deeply (about protecting institutions like gullible marks at the expense of real people everywhere).

That way, conservatives believe, individuals can avoid getting flattened by the mass extinctions of dinosaurs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not to mention Medicare and Social Security and their $100-trillion unfunded mandates.

Leaving aside wingnut math, I’m afraid he’s finally lost me. Sure, what’s come before has had zero connection to either logic or the English language, but at least I could follow the breadcrumb trail of IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION and dog whistles. Oh sure, there’s dog whistles a plenty, but I’m not sure how else this sentence came to be.

Closest I can figure is that he not only believes that corporations are real walking breathing people, but the only walking breathing people that matter. And our job is to try and stay out of their way when they die, because that’s apparently the only way anything can possibly impact us.

Wait…

…

Holy fuckballs, Batman, I’ve got it. Sure, it doesn’t make sense to say, real people, people who need to pay the bills, make sure they get enough to eat, fight to keep the apartment. But imagine, if you will, a broken ELIZA machine trapped in a Big Box suburb with more money than he could possibly spend in a lifetime.

The only connection to the rest of the world is through the rise and fall of his stocks.

To such a being, all that matters is whether or not you move your stocks out of a company before it declares bankruptcy, because every human worry or fear is like the fevered dream of some liberal somewhere.

It’s why even trying to defend Social Darwinism brings him to babbling incoherence. Of course people should die to prop up the Institutions. Those are what his stocks rely on. Humans aren’t on the stock market, their deaths do not make the little lines tick up nor down. Their tragedies are therefore meaningless. Only the potential portfolio poison of a Mighty Institution having a bad quarter affects the “real world”.

Of course, this conservative Social Darwinism is premised on the radical idea that humans are adaptable social animals who naturally seek out social solutions to their problems.

But not by creating a nation-wide social institution everyone is a part of in order to pool resources together and ensure that no one is left behind so everyone can relax and assume a safety net will take care of them if the worst should happen.

That’s socialist commie talk!

Also, please ignore that this isn’t even the definition of Social Darwinism I was defending last paragraph. Sure am glad that words mean whatever you want them to mean. It may look to the layman like conservatism is reviled, but I decided that reviled means “is owed infinite candy” so you better make a run to the Jelly Belly shop or I’m gonna have to shiv a bitch.

They are not helpless victims waiting around for the next brilliant idea to arrive in the living room with a thump — all 2,700 pages of it — from the Intelligent Liberal Designer upstairs.

So a religious fuckwad who believes evolution is fictitious, but believes in Social Darwinism when he can bother to remember what it is, thinks we shouldn’t wait for the man upstairs to take care of everything… And instead should literally wait around and do nothing and let the Man Upstairs or Market Forces take care of anything instead of trying to actively use our collective power to fix things. Also by taking charge of our destiny and trying to change the here and now, we’re being passive helpless victims just waiting for a brilliant idea to come and save us.

Seems legit.

After all, Obama’s health care plan was a really big bill and really reading’s just for brains and fags who understand what words mean.

And they dare call us Anti-Intellectuals just for trying to bash in pointy brain heads with mighty club! Og offended! Og use big words like onomatopoeia! Og real intellectual! Not like puny liberal!

Pay attention to Og’s word salad! Og work hard! Og have lots dog whistles! Og want to get between the sheets or contemplate this silent freeway! Og want to know if you want something to eat?

Og want know why you running away?

#

Sometimes here at Sadly, No! Industries, we approach a moment of great shame. This is one such moment. Checking the word count, it is clear this post is only 7.8 trillion words long rather than the requisite 8. To fix this problem, we are now including a bonus shorter.

Shorter Jack Cashill, American Wanker:
What Does ‘Composite Girl’ Tell Us About Obama?

• The fact that Obama tried to protect the identities of his ex-girlfriends from ghoulish fuckwads like me is proof that he’s a venerate liar who never existed. Also this proves that no racism has ever existed or negatively impacted interracial relationships.

  P.S. OMG, Obama is a Mandingo coming after your white women.

We apologize once more for the inconvenience.

*A special special needs enclave. Cause actual special needs children can run intellectual rings around these fuckers.

When you’re a middle-aged middle-manager suburban fuck trying to look like an extra from Deliverance, something’s gone terribly wrong with your life.

Jim Hoft, Goatse Pundit:
Horror!… Neo-Nazi #Occupy Phoenix Protester Goes on Shooting Rampage – 5 Dead*

Shorter (or the last port before jungle):

• The fact that JT Ready once annoyed a bunch of Occupy protesters is proof that he masturbated into a Karl Marx body pillow every night. So he’s yours liberals, just like every other lone wolf killer with no connection whatsoever to conservatives.

You’ve been warned. Now, on with the post.

The right is really desperate for a martyr. I mean, it always seems the Left gets to have all the martyrs just because they are the ones getting killed by the right-wingers. And that’s just not fair.

The Left doesn’t even want its martyrs and besides wastes them by doing things like having candlelight vigils, marches for solidarity, or using the deaths to highlight social ills or problems instead of doing cool stuff like using them to justify even more eliminationist rhetoric against people right-wingers hate. Not to mention the full-on ratcheting up of bigotry.

Meanwhile the Right is gagging for it. They need something, anything to justify the climate of fear they constantly live in, something to make themselves seem less like stereotypical old horror movie women running and screaming at every single noise and bump in the night.

They invented fake potential future martyrs with the death panels and the FEMA camps. They tried drawing backward Bs on their face and claiming Obama thugs did it. They tried straight up punching random Union members so they could claim random assault when one or two of them fought back. They have been trying to claim the smattering of black people being less willing to deal with bullshit from paranoid racists in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting (just like those uncultured thugs after MLK randomly got shot by someone) as a wave of race war against all whites everywhere. And they’ve been openly masturbating to Boy band member Anders Breivik (he’s the Bad Boy) being randomly executed just so they’ll finally have someone to work with.

And then, as if all their prayers were answered. It happened!

JT Ready, right-wing hero for running an extralegal murder gang patrolling the US-Mexico border looking for people with tans to shoot, was found dead.

Moreover, his Facebook page bore the wonderful news that:

“Reports are unconfirmed that a cartel assassination squad murdered JT Ready and several of his friends and family this afternoon in Gilbert Arizona,” the posting said. “This page’s admin will keep you updated of the situation as soon as possible.”

But sadly, wingnuts only had time for a quick 5 hour prolonged masturbation session and no time to post their triumphant skrees in the faces of all those meanie mean liberals before the inevitable happened.

Arizona vigilante Jason Todd “J.T.” Ready’s final act might have been his most horrific, say police.

Police have identified the former Marine with ties to neo-Nazi and Minutemen groups as one of the five people killed in a shooting spree in Gilbert, Ariz., a Phoenix suburb on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.

It also appears that Ready, who was running for sheriff in Arizona’s Pinal County, killed four people, including a 15-month-old baby girl, her mother, and grandmother, before he turn the gun on himself, reports The (Ariz.) Republic.

Well, fuck! No race war martyr this time and worse yet, there was yet another right-wing footsoldier that the usual gang of idiots needed to disavow all knowledge of and claim as a secret leftie (though they can easily understand how someone could be driven to such a state by blah blah blah).

Enter Jim Hoft and his site Gateway Pundit, which may very well have the ugliest, most nonsensical banner of any site I’ve used for my posts yet. Seriously, it’s like if someone’s family photo album contracted Space AIDS.

Jim realizes it might be difficult to claim as left-wing a man so right-wing he was a Neo-Nazi Minuteman White Supremacist Militia member, but Jim realizes that with his mayfly of an attention span audience, he doesn’t need to try all that hard.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Back in October we reported that Neo-Nazi Jason Todd Ready was patrolling the #Occupy Phoenix camp with AR-15?s.

Yes… he was “patrolling” Occupy Phoenix and certainly Jim Hoft does his level best to insinuate that this meant some identification with the cause.

Now, briefly let us entertain this notion as if it was based in reality. I’m not exactly sure what that would be proving. Occupy, while seen as left-leaning movement, is at its heart mostly about class oppression and is not liberal only (hence the We are the 99% rather than the We are the 72% (Minus 27% and 1%)). Additionally, I’m not sure what one single appearance on one issue would do to erase his lifelong far right credentials or the fact that before this death, the right-wing has been orgasming themselves silly on how he and the other Minutemen were the manly solution to the Border problem.

And sure, that would be one track to take if this had any real bearing on reality. The Minutemen goons pretty much showed up to get themselves some publicity, try to make themselves look less like the fringe nutters they are, and to annoy the liberal-leaning protesters in that passive-aggressive way that conservatives like to participate in liberal events (we see you anti-gay protester who is first in line at Pride so no one will block his view of the men in the banana hammocks).

Really hope this isn’t all the sauce Jim has for the post or this is going to get into sobbing into a moe body pillow territory real fast.

Neo-Nazi Jason Todd (J.T.) Ready pictured on left patrolling the Occupy Phoenix protest and on right at Southern Poverty Law Center website.

Ooh. Ooh dear, that’s not good at all. And losing wingnut points too by citing the Southern Poverty Law Center as the respected recognizer of hate groups that it is rather than just ranting about how its bigoted against Proud Conservatives like JT Ready who dare speak the truth.

Not at all a good start for the rookie.

Of course, since this was not a Tea Party rally the story was never picked up by the liberal media.

Oh, fuck, Jim, Jimmy boy, what the fuck are you doing?!?

Now, you’re giving away the game on the whole teabagger publicity shtick? That the supposedly liberal media was right there at every moment to give the teabaggers all the air-time they could ever want, but ran in fear of even acknowledging the Occupy movement for fear that it would catch on more than it did?

It’s been literally 3 sentences and so far you’ve tripped over your own dick and given up the farm on two highly successful right-wing scam outrages. What’s next, giving up in the same post your flimsy rationale-

From the Video: Morpheus heads to down town Phoenix at the Cesar Chavez plaza to join with other individuals to DEMONSTRATE for the right to exist! The demonstrators get some protection from JT Ready and US Border Guard

Of course, he did. Why wouldn’t he? It’s not like he still had dignity at this point. Sure, he’s managed to sever his penis and lose it up the bowels of his own prolapsed anus, but why would that stop him from still trying to fuck himself?!?

So, yeah, four sentences into the post and now even the flimsy premise of his post has been disproven. Hmm, gosh, was JT Ready at the demonstration? Yup, sure was, but by the video and comment he just posted, it wasn’t to fucking join in, but rather to shill for supporters to make his little hate group legal (hey, it’s Arizona, it’s only a matter of fucking time at this point) and to otherwise be an annoying prick.

It’s like saying that the protesters outside an abortion clinic are OB/GYNs preforming surgical abortions.

Jason Todd (J.T.) Ready, is a Neo-Nazi with a long criminal record who, also, received a bad-conduct discharge from the Marines in 1996.

This week Jason Todd went on a horrific shooting spree.

Man, passive language and vague comments really are a lifesaver at times like these. What were those crimes, what caused his discharge from the Marines, when did being a Neo-Nazi become a fucking left-wing phenomenon, what political motivations make him a name worth giving a fuck about, especially on a small-time incident like this? Who could say? And if no one could say, then obviously that single not even an appearance must have been the only fucking thing he ever did in his life.

You believe that, right? Please say you believe that!

Next is the little segment I quoted earlier detailing the event. None of which is actually from the yahoo story supposedly being quoted. Probably because that story couldn’t really leave out the “why we should give a fuck” elements that Jim Hoft is desperately trying to beat to death with a golf club.

Left out is of course, the whole Minutemen thing that defined him, and of course the complete erasure of who was killed, leaving it as a generic spree. Yeah, wouldn’t want someone pointing out that he killed his girlfriend, her daughter, her daughter’s boyfriend, and her granddaughter.

Might make it seem less like that “left-wing terrorist” that the Right has been looking desperately for since the Weathermen and more like just another crazed right-wing misogynist deciding to take out on their wife/girlfriend their various frustrations on how the world is “emasculating” them.

Also not included? The fact that his girlfriend was latina (how did she not catch the giant red flags on that one?). Which leads me to wonder, what is with all these professional haters and them banging the targets of their hatred?

I mean, we had white supremacists like Strom Thurmond and their secret black lovers, plantation owners raping their slaves all over the place while arguing that they weren’t fit to touch with bare hands, and of course the huge number of anti-gay professionals being caught getting their luggage lifted.

Is it the taboo, or is it just fealty to the right-wing tribe? That is, if they find the group they are supposed to hate tasty, they need to hate even stronger and more publicly to try and prove themselves over it?

I’m legitimately curious at this point.

Now what was I talking about?

As Jim Treacher says, “The Occupy Camp is a great incubator for domestic terrorism.”
That’s an understatement!

Oh, right, this dipshit.

Yeah, I’m not even sure I should even dignify this bit of IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION with a response. I mean, they’ve been literally trying to find anything, literally anything, to pin on the Occupy movement for fucking months and the closest they managed to get was an internal rape problem that plagues any open-air movement with no bars for entry.

And this? Pfft, he disproved this horseshit himself in the 4th sentence. And that’s before we note that this supposed sage statement came up before there was even that weak desperate piece of sauce.

Hey, wingnuts, if you’re embarrassed by the number of nationally-known domestic terrorists you’ve been producing in the last handful of years, why don’t you try, I dunno, STOP PRODUCING THEM?!?

I know, we, your humble victims, would sure love it if you’d do that and then we’d have no reason to be such meanie poopyheads going around turning your former heroes into right-wing terrorists just cause they decided to go on a shooting spree or two.

It’d just save everyone effort all around, really… And they say Left and Right can’t work together to solve problems anymore!

More… It looks like poor unhinged Charles Johnson jumped the gun on this one.

Man, remember when Charles Johnson and John Cole were just right-wing fucks receiving endless blowjobs from freaks like this?

No, seriously, who slipped them the antidote to the crazy pills, and can we sneak it into the water supply of rural areas? Cause, that shit doesn’t happen nearly as often as it should.

JT wasn’t a rightwinger after all, huh Chuck?

Yeah, my tenuous self-disproven hand-wave totally erased all the extremely well documented right-wing values espoused and championed by JT Ready! Yup! Hell, why are we even talking about him? All he was was some nutbar Occupy protester. And he went on a shooting spree, probably of super-white Republicans. See, we can have our martyrs too! They’re somewhere! Damn it, we were so close too, why couldn’t you have at least been shot by the dying husband of your girlfriend’s daughter so we could legitimately claim you were gunned down by someone with “strong ties to latino organizations” or some such shit. Fuck you JT Ready, you goddamn cocktease!

Hopefully Mr. Johnson will be honest enough to post an update with corrections.

Yes, Mr. Johnson, take a cue from the paragon of honesty that is Jim Hoft.

Actually, what makes this even more amazing is that this is his response to the response.

Just this.

So, Charles Johnson, reformed fucknozzle that he is, jumps in and points the obvious on this little turd, and good ol Jimmy’s response is “yup, it sure is a smelly one, ain’t it?” as if he didn’t just get bitchslapped so hard he almost thought lucidly for the first time in his life.

I don’t know why he even bothered. Usually, you post an attempted rebuttal to you know, rebut the rebuttal, say something new that demolishes your opponent’s point, say by pointing out the flawed nature of their logic or something.

You don’t just post a link to someone pointing out you have the intellect that Demeter gave amoebas and act like the sheer effort of posting that link is the same as a response. No, he doesn’t think your original case is convincing, that’s why he mocked it Jimmy.

So why bring attention to it at all? If you’ve got nothing, you don’t just link to the people laughing about it with a goofy smile on your face.

They’re not laughing with you Jimmy. THEY’RE LAUGHING AT YOU! DO YOU HEAR ME FUCKWAD? THEY’RE LAUGHING AT YOU!

Hopefully, Mr. Hoft will update a derisive self-fail with regards to this post as well.

*Yeah, there’s like a gazillion things wrong with that title, you could tackle the IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION, the turning of a domestic violence murder-suicide (the ones that just happen to be more prevalent among conservative men with manliness issues) into a “shooting spree” to try and get a false equivalence with Breivik and all the other shooting sprees conservatives have been having lately, trying to use a twitter hashtag in a goddamn post title, and of course the nonsensical pairing of “Neo-Nazi” and Occupy like that makes sense and doesn’t at all give away the attempted “nuh uh, he’s yours”-ness of the whole post. It’s like Jim Hoft is trying to use his blog post title as a plea for an intervention for his massive drug problem.

Tiger Beat suddenly realized they made a mistake trying to appeal to the Wingnut Crowd.

John O’ Sullivan, National Reverse Spew:
Breivik Puts Norway on Trial

We liberals can be a cruel lot, often assuming a complete lack of genuine morality and empathy in our wingnut counterparts simply because of how they act and what they support.

Sure, conservatives may eagerly support continuing and expanding systems of racist, sexist, homophobic bigotry, may indiscriminately support the bombing of brown people, any brown people, are unable to empathize with the suffering of anyone poorer than Scrooge McDuck and may universally rally behind the murderer of a child simply because of the races of the people involved and a vague connection to a law they support because of a tangential link to the only constitutional amendment they’ve ever liked…

I’m sure I had a point in there… Oh right, it’s that, sure, the path of wingnuttery can lead to a lot of sordid and horrifying moral positions, but we really shouldn’t assume that’s the same as complete abandonment of any semblance of human morality.

I mean, sure, their blind following of their authoritarian impulses and the reduction of life into a sports match between “two teams” you support no matter what, has led to some unthinkable public choices in recent years, but there is some spark of life in the old wingnut hind brain.

They do recognize that there are still lines that they dare not cross. You don’t just up and kill people… unless they happen to support legal medical practices that happen to help women. You don’t openly support the KKK… unless they dress in 1700s cosplay and call themselves Teabaggers. And you don’t openly masturbate about how rugged and handsome and manly serial killers are…

Phew. I was really afraid that-

• I honestly can’t decide what turns me on more. Breivik’s Nordic good looks and striking political philosophies or the very thought of liberals being forced to betray their principles.

Sonuvabitch!

Well, why the fuck not? I mean, conservatives have basically been tripping over their own balls (an impressive feat to be sure) to be the first one to abandon any semblance of humanity so as to be the “pure conservative” free from any filthy connection to the “corruption” of liberalism.

We’ve seen them literally declare War on Empathy in the Sotomayor confirmation, step up their rate of terrorism, openly sabotage the country during a Depression because quote they want to destroy the president endquote, introduce legislation and openly debate reintroducing child slavery, rally around the cowardly murderer of a child and treat him like their goddamn Gandhi, and nominate a fucking Transmetropolitan villain as their presidential candidate.

So why not masturbate to the lone gunman child killer they helped create now that people seem to mostly have forgotten that he was a product of America’s right wing?

Fuck, in many ways, it’s a step up.

Let’s just get this over with.

Norway’s trial of Anders Behring Breivik for the mass murder of 77 people last year has not really captured the attention of National Review Online as yet, but it is provoking some anguished debates in Norway and across Europe. It is also raising some very uncomfortable questions.

Yes, totally just anguished debates among the left. Definitely none among the right as they try and figure out how they can keep creating more of them without having Norwegian Ninja sicced on their ass.

Sure, IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION, but I’ll give them half credit for being halfway aware that Breivik is definitely a topic for discussion among someone. It’s sadly a step up from the usual response on the right to Breivik, which is screaming about how he’s not their fault and besides the victims totally deserved it for having one or two swarthy people among them.

The first such question is: Why should there be a trial at all — or at least a trial that treats the verdict as something in doubt? Everybody knows that Breivik murdered 77 innocent people; we all know just why he did so. His rambling paranoid web attacks on Norway’s social democrats for betraying Christian civilization were given wide publicity on the day after his rampage. Today he is not denying but rather boasting about his crimes. Nothing crucial to justice is in doubt.

What?

Why could the court not simply hear his plea, take very brief factual evidence identifying Breivik as the perpetrator, pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life?

What?

Trials with that brisk format used to take place in Britain following guilty pleas. Something like that could surely have been justified here. Indeed, it might be a moral improvement on what otherwise cannot help being a show trial.

WHAT?!?

Okay, shitnozzle, I understand in our current American system of “if you’re poor and black, you’re going to prison regardless of innocence, and if you’re rich and white, we’ll pay for your limo ride out of the courthouse even if you admit to raping an elderly nun”, it can be hard to remember the point of courts.

But yeah, courtrooms exist for a goddamn reason, because they are a system of equal justice for ALL people no matter what.

In times where there is a high profile case with an infamous defendant whose crime is monstrous it is even more imperative that you give them a fair and honest trial, because that’s what gives one’s justice system the right to exist. If you’re willing to throw that away at the drop of the hat, you don’t have a fucking justice system anymore, you have a barely disguised authoritarian tool for keeping the masses in line.

Hence why the “no trial” bullshit for the Guantanamo Criminals was so egregious, because it meant we literally demonstrated that we had zero faith in the justice system to function if there was any possibility of there being a fair trial.

But yeah, Norway needs a fair trial of Anders Breivik where he is allowed to make his case, no matter how batshit and egregious, because by doing so, they can demonstrate that the Norwegian justice system works. That it ensures guilty people go to jail and innocent people walk free and thus allows people to trust that the justice system will treat them fairly if they should ever get in trouble with the law.

I mean, I know after the Bush years, conservatives have had problems with most forms of legitimate justice, but this is the first time, I’ve actually seen someone literally unable to understand why FAIR FUCKING TRIALS work.

That leads to the second question: Who benefits from a show trial?

Oh right, so much time boggling at the complete fail, I didn’t get to really go into the attempt to assume that giving someone a fair trial to prove the system works is what a show trial is.

Um, yeah, no. A show trial is a trial that is rigged and will not listen to legitimate points. Like say our “trial” of one of the terrorists we tortured at Guantanamo whose incarceration, trial, and subsequent ruling was complete bullshit thanks to us just throwing out the rulebook about what fucking happens to a case when you torture someone. Giving someone all the rope to hang themselves to prove the system works and is unwilling to treat a vile waste of flesh as a supervillain just because they did something evil enough to make the national news is not a goddamn show trial.

Is it the prosecution, by getting a large hearing for its case? Or the public, because it learns important lessons from it? Or the perpetrator because, however vile his actions, he looks like a lone man against the world and gains something from that impression?

Its the system. You know, so it can continue being a system. Thus preventing Norway from becoming the United States where a growing number of people are pretty much assuming the justice system is against them from birth simply because it is.

Some jurists wanted a show trial in Breivik’s case because they thought it would show what a vile monster he undoubtedly is. Norway’s courtroom rules played into that desire. Unfortunately, they also played into Breivik’s calculations, which have turned out to be shrewder.

Yeah, that’s right. The complete failing to understand what a show trial is…

That’s just foreplay for the real… meat of the post as it were. Yeah, the shorter doesn’t lie folks. Breivik ranting and raving about the Secret Muslim Uprising has gotten some wingnuts so hot they’ve completely forgotten that they are supposed to be divorcing themselves from him and pretending that they have nothing in common.

They just can’t help it. The more they try and pretend, the less they can hide their heart’s true desire. With that neckbeard and Aryan features, they must have him. Have him pull on their hair and call them Aaeesha.

Also bonus points for applying the usual “everything liberals do is just to smear a conservative” shtick to proving a murderer’s crimes to a court of law. Oh, deary me, lawd, how could those mean liberals try to prove that the man who shot and killed 69 kids has done something villainous requiring legal response. Why that’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL and IMMORAL and WAH, I say again, WAH!

As Dan Hodges — a Blairite commentator on the Daily Telegraph website who is always thoughtful and (on other topics) entertaining — makes the following observation on how the trial is unfolding:

Ha! A fishwrapper writer for the Daily Torygraph being “insightful”. Yeah, that shows you right where his bread is buttered (right up his ass). I’d ask what color the sky is on his planet, but I’m pretty sure it’s green. So how about that brilliant insightfulness?

I find its sterility demeaning. The cramped, featureless courtroom. Breivik seated casually at the table between his attorneys, looking like a man taking part in a civil custody hearing, rather than someone on trial for 77 murders.

It’s an environment that appears to be framing Breivik, not cowing or reducing him as I’d hoped. There is no banality of evil on display here. Breivik actually appears quite an imposing figure, his physicality if anything enhanced by his calm, softly spoken interventions.

Yup, just in case you thought masturbating to Breivik was just isolated to one lone nutbar on the National Review payroll.

Also, yeah, the snippet is basically, gee gosh willikers, Breivik looks like a white guy, not our stereotypical assumptions on what a criminal looks like (i.e. all non-white people, and young white people who look suspiciously liberal looking). Well, that must mean he’s innocent, so he must be winning the Court Room.

Also, I get that Nordic and Swedish people are often fetishized by white countries as inherently hot, but… wow, there are some serious erections popping for that ugly neckbearded motherfucker.

In this atmosphere Breivik says things that are undoubtedly interesting.

Don’t you find with attraction, that everything they say becomes captivating? That their very voice is comforting and warm? And time seems to slow down as the wind wisps through every strand of their hair? Until you climb upon the table yelling “Do me Anders, treat me like the Muslim Menace taking over our souls”?

No? Just wingnut columnists?

How odd.

His description, for instance, of how he was surprised that many of his victims “froze” rather than attempting to escape was repellent, but it told us something surprising we did not know before.

Humans react like any other animal in times of great stress and peril with some fleeing, some turning to fight, and others freezing in place to hopefully become less of a target? Huh. Completely new information. Or else, it would be if we were some alien life form that never bothered to learn anything about humanity.

As a result, he becomes a little more interesting himself and so (as is plainly one of his aims) a little less blankly monstrous. Occasionally he even makes little jokes at which people in the courtroom laugh. They laugh — it’s a normal human reaction, hard to avoid — but it further relativizes him and his crimes.

…

(blink)

…

WHAT?

I know I’m saying that a lot this post, but wow, I’m not actually sure where to start on this mess, so I’m going to have 3 separate reactions simultaneously that I will list A-C:

A) Oh yes, describing how your victims died like animals in a slaughter and how you showed no mercy in dispatching them when they clearly posed no threat whatsoever to you really endears you to the crowd. I’m betting they were swooning in the aisles to that rugged bit of manliness!

B) Of course, he’s not literally a monster. No “history’s greatest monster” is. All of them were human beings with complexities to them. That doesn’t subtract from their crimes. Hitler wasn’t a better person because he treated dogs kindly while he was ordering the extermination of the Jews. In fact, our obsession with reducing “bad guys” to inhuman monsters is used often to erase the real crimes they commit by making it something caused by “evil” rather than say ideologies that demonize and remove the humanity from perceived “enemies”. Not to mention the way it allows idiots to treat human beings like real life superheroes who can break out of prisons like they were tissue paper if we were to actually trust our justice system to do its bloody job.

C) That’s a terrible usage of the word relativizes!

Yeah okay, the last one is completely out of proportion to the other two, but it’s obviously only there to get the boot in on the Right’s favorite hobby horse “moral relativism” and try and throw one more hidden elbow to the face at it while pretending they mean something else. Why do I say that? Because there’s no other reason to use the barely correct word relativize there when empathize is so much less awkward.

It’s like they can’t help themselves anymore and if they don’t include at least one dog whistle per paragraph, they start getting the withdrawal symptoms again.

Nothing can make Breivik sympathetic, but he will doubtless be satisfied with planting even the smallest seed of doubt about his utter wickedness or irrationality.

A) Hey look, someone just realized they were caught masturbating and are desperately trying to hide the tube sock. It’d be convincing if only liberals shared the same mental impairment as conservatives and also were unable to remember 5 seconds prior.

B) Yes, there’s so much doubt about his wickedness when he describes his conscienceless slaughter and tries to blame it literally on “bu-bu-but the muslims are worse” (oh, yes, that bullshit is coming soon). Well, certainly to people who want an excuse for worshipping him as a living God who finally did what they’ve been wanting to do, but have been too cowardly to do for years.

C) Ha. Yes, because the Left are the one’s concerned his actions might not come across as “irrational”. No, I believe the Left has been rather vocal about how “rational” his actions were. No, not because they were based in reality, but because it’s perfectly understandable where someone got the idea that they needed to kill kids to stop Muslim encroachment when their “Manifesto” was nothing more than copy-paste from the average right-wing website.

Or did you already forget why you were so desperate to make him an irrational “lone wolf” in the first place?

That is why it is so dangerous that he will apparently be allowed to bring on extreme Islamists as witnesses for his defense. In effect he is claiming justified homicide — which in this case means justified mass murder — presumably on the grounds that it is legitimate to murder people if they promote, inter alia, the immigration of extremists.

Yup. I told you it was coming. Yeah, so very sympathetic and reasonable he is what with the describing his victims deaths and ranting about needing to bring in radical Muslims for defense.

Also love how the columnist is going hook, line, and sinker for this. He’s allowed to make a defense and he’s right-wing! That must mean he’s demonstrated his case and the Left and the mean old prosecutors have no response, because conservative manly men who “stand up” to things are always right.

Yeah, no, see, before about rope, the giving thereof, and the subsequent actions one performs with said rope.

And you’d think the Right-wing would be slightly more concerned with their Nordic dreamboat linking in Court the direct connection between his actions and unfounded right-wing paranoia. Forget putting the nail in the coffin for the Right in Norway, this is a potential blow against the Right everywhere. Especially if say wingnuts do something stupid like say… promote it on their fucking nationally known blogs while crouched over like fucking Aqualung!

But then, that just brings up the ropes again and so on and so forth.

If that is not the reason for having Islamists as defense witnesses, what is?

Oh, bloody hell, don’t make the adage about ropes any more shopworn than it already is. We won’t be able to use it for bondage afterwords.

Also, append to “Fair Trial, your complete lack of understanding about”.

And if that is the reason, what on earth would be the state of Norwegian law if Breivik were to be acquitted on those grounds?

Probably pretty bad. But then see, Norway isn’t so terrified by completely unlikely remote possibilities that they abandon their justice system at the drop of a hat like us.

It allows them to shame us by showing that said fears are complete bullshit and that trusting and improving one’s system is the best course of action.

Also, if that happened, all it would do is reveal a rot already in existence in the Norwegian justice system. And if that’s the case, better it come out now during a high-profile trial than just letting it fester and rot.

Perhaps if we had taken the real lessons of the OJ trial (justice is purchasable and having racist cops mishandle evidence can let an obvious killer go free) instead of what we did learn (that we’d never suffer another black man going free again, regardless of innocence), maybe our justice system wouldn’t be an international joke.

A very remote contingency, I grant, but worth considering. For if Breivik cannot possibly be acquitted on the grounds that his 77 murders were justifiable, then there is no good reason for having these witnesses. They certainly didn’t witness anything.

I know I keep circling around this like a buzzard hoping to get first dibs on the eyeball, but I just can’t help it. He really can’t handle the notion that the Defense is allowed to defend itself and try to prove their inane bullshit in a court of law. As a proper authoritarian, to him, any criminal case ends the moment the cops grab you off the street. Fuck, at the moment, a cop eyes you suspiciously for being too much of a goddamn hippie.

So, the only thing he can think of to explain why the Defense is allowed to defend itsself in a court of law is either secret shadow show trials to attack good manly Conservative Gods or proof that the Defense is really on to something and this will finally allow conservatives to go on killing sprees as long as they blame Al-Queda first.

Sorry, Johnny Oldboy, going to have to delay your Battle Royale/Hunger Games fantasies just a little there, but it’s just how Courts are supposed to work. Honestly, if I was the prosecutor and the Defense wanted to pull a stunt like that, I would not only allow it but buy the Defense Lawyer a drink for making my job that much fucking easier than it already was.

The final uncomfortable question is: What punishment should Breivik receive?

Ah, we’ve finally come to the crucial point. John O’ Sullivan has a steel erection that could puncture a wood table and has the wetsuits and dildo in place and ready for a bit of fun, but has haltingly come to realize that the National Review is not going to let him get away with posting this under “The Editors” so he can finish up.

So, he’s got the hard-on and as a conservative, you never pull out when you can go “all the way”. So what is he to do?

At present the harshest sentence available to the court is imprisonment for 21 years. In practice that might turn out to be lifetime imprisonment, either in a jail, because he is judged to be a continuing danger to the public, or in a psychiatric hospital, because he is judged to be insane. That is the very least the Norwegian people will or should accept. But is it enough? Does it fit such a monstrous crime? In the light of Norway’s comfortable prison conditions, such a penalty can hardly be called harsh.

Start jerking it to the notion of liberal hippie Norway having to “get tough on crime” (ah yes, now tweak the nipples) and default to the conservatives (yes, we’re always so right, you never understand) by turning brave handsome sexy Breivik into the Right’s very own tortured martyr (mmm, yes, suck it Vagina-Americans and your obsessions with vampires, we know that child murderers are the real bad boys just needing someone to tame the beast within).

And yes, I wish I was fucking kidding.

Hodges feels frustrated at this, asking if Breivik shouldn’t simply have been shot out of hand. He is being less than half-serious here. He marshals all the right civil-rights arguments against such a course. He knows that his feelings cannot and should not be acted upon. But his instincts are expressing a serious moral point, too — namely, that some crimes are so terrible that they require a punishment that reflects that horror. They should not be relativized away, an outcome that Norway currently risks.

There’s that fucking word again. And again being awkwardly inserted where it fits even less. Hell, at least in the other case there was a vague case to be made that it was technically correct if not linguistically awkward. Here, the only way it can make sense is as a dog-whistle. It literally doesn’t make sense unless you read it as a slam against Moral Relativism. And even then, it’s completely nonsensical on a second reading.

And in case you thought I was kidding about the masturbation, we get so many tells. “instincts”, the way he “marshalls” himself, “require a punishment” and for those who think veils are for doxied trollops:

“He knows that his feelings cannot and should not be acted upon.”

And people knock Romance Novels for terrible masturbatory writing.

Oddly, very few people have suggested that the death penalty is the answer here. Jenny McCartney raises the question in order to dismiss it on the grounds — not trivial but not persuasive to me — that Breivik probably wants the death penalty so as to be a historic figure even, if only a Herostratus rather than a hero. But how many of the Nuremberg defendants became historic figures because of their executions? Except for those who were already historic figures, however disgracefully, none of them. Speer, who was sentenced to twenty years, achieved greater prominence and attracted greater interest than any of those executed into obscurity.

Well, seeing as how you’re jerking it like a rabid macaque to how hot it would be if liberals gave in to the endless bloodlust that you and your reptilian ilk daily live, he’d probably want it for the same rush of orgasm he’d feel as he was martyred and remembered as something more than a paranoid 30-something who needed to kill kids just to feel like a man.

That is what I would be saying if there was any evidence whatsoever for Breivik actually wanting the death penalty in any way. Which it looks like the entire sum total of evidence is a bunch of wingnut writers having a giant circle jerk on how hot it would be if Norway decided to give up and become a backwater clusterfuck like America.

And out of curiosity, I checked into his actual defense. It and the case are mostly about whether or not he should be sent to a mental institution for his prison sentence or a traditional prison. Yes, ooh, ahh, manly Breivik’s super cock is going to make Norway go against their principles and create a martyr for the New Crusade.

And why should we be concerned about what Breivik wants anyway?

Jesus, right-wing, I know you don’t believe in consent, but Breivik’s not going to be able to do you like you want without it. I mean, you could rape him, but it’s just going to leave you even more unsatisfied than you are now.

Some years ago National Review and The Nation cosponsored a debate on the death penalty.

Hello non-sequitur grasp at relevance.

The disputants included the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the late Christopher Hitchens, former New York City mayor Edward Koch, and Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst.

Jesse Jackson later wondered why he bothered to show up and lent credibility to this clown show.

It was a high-quality debate with strong arguments on both sides.

Snrk. Yes, I’m totally sure that both sides had strong arguments. Why they were so strong that the only link is to a dead Youtube page despite National Review being one of the participants.

Jackson that night made a powerful speech opposing capital punishment on Christian grounds.

And only Christian grounds. There is no secular moral argument whatsoever for the outlawing of capital punishment and certainly no real world evidence arguing against the death penalty both in light of how poor it works as a deterrent for violent crime as well as its horrific consequences with regards to Type I errors resulting from shoddy prosecution and failures of the Justice System.

Nope. None whatsoever. Ignore the hippies and their crazy talk.

But my impression is that he was impressed at the closing argument from Hadley. At any rate he gave Hadley a hug.

Wow. That’s just sad. Yes, Jesse Jackson was totally enamored with your pet wingnut on the panel and totally thought his arguments were superawesome megapenis! After all, why would he show basic debate formalities if he wasn’t bowing before Hadley’s death cock of logic?

Hold onto that thought Johnny, cause its pretty damn obvious you need something to warm your bed at night.

“We do not think that we should have to share the world with those who committed such a crime against God and man,” ended Hadley, quoting Hannah Arendt on the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem. (I quote from memory.) He then sat down amid the kind of subdued applause that greets a powerful moral point inviting agreement rather than cheering.

Yes, see, when the audience gives you pity applause, that’s proof that you’ve made a really profound point that’s swayed the audience and left them wowed. Wild applause or awed noises? Those are for pansies. It’s all about the pity clap and the rolled eyeballs.

I’m sorry. But I’m just feeling pity for this bastard right now. He’s three seconds from coming and he’s practically sobbing into his tube sock about how his team is totally holding their own intellectually and isn’t just masturbating to their hatreds.

He so wants to be coming from an intellectual respected place literally while he’s in the midst of spasming on the force of his emotional train wreck of a reaction.

I don’t know if I can maintain the same hate for-

Well, Norway had abolished the death penalty in the early 20th century. Following the Second World War, however, the Norwegians reintroduced it in order to have a fit and suitable punishment for the Nazis, their Norwegian allies (notably Vidkun Quisling, who had ruled Norway on Hitler’s behalf), and those who had participated in the Holocaust. They did not think that they should have to share the world with those who committed such crimes against God and man.

And I’m back.

It is worth pointing out here that the tagline for this overlong self-love session is:

If Quisling deserved the death penalty . . .

That would be Vidkun Quisling. You know, the origin of the phrase “a quisling”, i.e. a traitor who sells out their own people for personal power and advancement.

And yeah, a Nazi who literally planted the idea of an invasion of Norway in Der Fuhrer’s head because he was hoping it would allow him to rule Occupied Norway (which it did) and who when so rewarded ordered his country to submit like a bitch so he could live out his power fantasies of owning a country was indeed executed after Norway had banned the death penalty…

Well, kinda. See, they had only abolished capital punishment in peacetime. Leaving it open as punishment for huge war crimes like say… treason. Norway didn’t fully abolish the death penalty in all circumstances until 1979. So it’s not like Norway abandoned its principles to take out Quisling like a boss.

So yeah, he’s a little off-target in his wanking to begin with and that’s before we factor in the little old issue of “Holy Fuckballs, is this fucker trying to retro hero-worship a fucking Nazi as well?!?”

But I digress. Let’s let old Johnny continue.

If the Norwegians were to reach the same decision about Breivik on the same grounds, is there anyone who would not understand?

Wait, is this the point of that random non-sequitur about some forgettable wingnut dickwad trying to debate way out of his depth? He really thought that Hadley time-traveled to Occupied Norway and convinced Norway to totally betray the principles they didn’t actually betray for reasons they didn’t actually do it for, thus proving that right-wingers have the biggest intellectual cocks even when they are on trial for serial murder or some such shit?!?

Wow, Johnny old boy, that’s… a new level of pathetic. Even the guy who died with Standard Republican Masturbation Method #7 would look down on that display.

Who wants to read some day that Breivik is corresponding with the Unabomber?

Sigh…

A) Of course, because the Unabomber is the last terrorist you could even vaguely link to liberalism (and even then it was kinda a big fucking stretch seeing as how he was just a weird neo-luddite and his manifesto is mostly filled with in-depth critiques of Leftism and its “immorality”), which brings up

B) I think we’d be more concerned with him corresponding with Pam Atlas and well… you. You know, the same fucking jokers he was corresponding and religiously reading before he decided to go on his killing spree? The same ones he copied and pasted to form his “Manifesto” like some Sadly, No! troll? Yes, please do remind everyone of exactly who was Breivik’s inspiration. Not to mention

C) The Unabomber is rotting in prison. For life. He’s never going to see the light of day again and it really doesn’t matter what he thinks because he no longer has a means to act on those thoughts in the destructive way he had. See, that’s what happens when the Justice System does its job and is allowed to function. Criminals who are dangerous to public society are locked up. In backwards hippie nations like Norway, they might even be subjected to genuine rehabilitation designed to make the criminals into better citizens who can be reintroduced into society without lapsing into their old ways.

So yeah, ooh, so scary. I know you want to live in the exciting world of comic books. But there’s no such thing as Supervillains. They aren’t real. If two notorious criminals talk to each other, they aren’t going to hatch an ingenious plan to break out and form a team-up to take out Superman, they are going to ramble at each other and no one will care.

Because real humans no matter how “evil” their crimes are just that, puny little humans who decided in their cowardice and need for importance to do something to try and make themselves seem more important than they were by destroying the lives and experiences of others.

And when you feed that delusion, you’re FUCKING REINFORCING THAT SHIT!

Or that he has smuggled out a manuscript justifying his crimes?

…

Billy Bob Gringo in a pork grinder, you’re going to make me break out the A, B, C again, aren’t you?

Sigh.

A) He did. It’s called his Manifesto. You should recognize it, it’s mostly made from copyright violations of your peers’ works.

B) Yeah, I’m betting you are terrified of that, because the more he rambles, the harder it is to separate him from what is rapidly becoming a mainstream Republican party platform item.

C) HE DOESN’T NEED TO! You and you’re fucking kind will do it for him. Fuck, your contemporaries started doing it at the same time they were running screaming from any connection to him. Not to mention that you’ve been doing it IN THIS FUCKING POST.

Self Awareness! Do you have it?

Who now thinks that Quisling was wrongly executed?

Besides you? … Apparently. Well, fuck, if Buchannan can write a book detailing how the nazis were just underappreciated flower children who never wanted to do any wrong and Jonah Goldberg can claim that they were working for the same liberal forces that made up the entirety of the internal resistance to them, why not start claiming infamous traitors and capos as right-wing saints martyred by mean hippies. Fuck, at the current rate, it’s pretty much even money that we get a major Republican figure praising the Nazis before the 2016 election.

But yeah, that’s the end-note. Jacking off on the bloody stump of Quisling. Because apparently bloodlust is now a literal notion on the Right.

…

Cause Rule 34, motherfuckers.

Shorter Clay Waters, Newsblusterers
‘Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay,’ ‘We Are All Nuns,’ More Left-Wing Fodder from NYT Sunday Review

• Anybody who says I’m gay can let me suck their cock, er, I mean can suck my cock.

Over at Brent Bozell’s band of misfit boys, aka Newsblusterers, the winsomely handsome sex-bucket and man of my dreams Clay Waters was assigned the New York Times this weekend and asked to ferret out some examples of verboten thought to wave about on Monday for the benefit of Newsblusterer’s excitable readership. So you can imagine Clay’s delight when he found something in the OpEd section on teh gays. Woohoo! Job done!! Game over!!! Throw up a quick post on how the Times is sucking up to the perverts and then off to the Cheesecake Factory for double helpings. (And maybe a little action in the Men’s Room at the restaurant if he’s lucky — because who else but somebody sufficiently desperate to troll a toilet would even think about touching Clay? But I digress. . . )

And a Sunday Review opinion piece by psychology professors Richard Ryan and William Ryan used a single study (employing "semantic association") to elevate a common liberal taunt redolent of cheap psychology: "Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay,which asked: "Why are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?"

Naturally the most effective way to challenge a scientific study is to put its methodology in scare quotes, as in “they used ‘telescopes’ and ‘planetary observation’ to prove that the earth revolved about the sun.”

The Ryans then strung together a few incidents involving conservatives who opposed gay marriage (hardly a fringe stance)(Ed. note: apparently as opposed to a "wide" stance) over the course of the last several years to insinuate some broad pattern.

Translation: because Ted Haggard, Larry Craig and George Murphy, Jr. are the only anti-gay people ever caught with dicks in their mouth, you are not entitled to draw any conclusions at all from my continuously obsessing over how disgusting buttsex is. Just the thought of two dudes together makes me want to throw up, which means that I am constantly thinking of throwing up. You can’t get any straighter than that.

Okay, Clay, we believe you. Really, we do.

Don’t let Nancy Pelosi’s vag destroy beautiful unions like this!

A Corporate American, National Review:
Keep the First Amendment

• Corporations are too people. If you cut them, do they not bleed? Oh… right, um… SMOKESCREEN! Clever escape!

Today’s outing is a particularly special treat. A National Review article that no one wanted to put their name to. Think about that for a second. The National Review regularly pushes out articles proudly claimed by their authors on the topics of how one’s word processing software kicked their ass in an argument. Not to mention the unending stream of J-Load posts that are just asking the readers to write his next post for him.

But this outing? Nope, no one wanted to touch it with a ten-foot pole.

And honestly, it’s not hard to see why. It’s pretty obviously just a mandate sent on down from the Koch Brothers worrying that the century and a half gravy train that has been “corporate personhood” may slowly be being stopped by Denzel Washington and Chris Pine acting in a terrible movie.

And despite trying its darndest, it still can’t escape the basic problem that whenever you try and claim that amorphous megacorporations are people, it just comes off sounding dumb as fuck. In fact so much that I’m surprised more comedies and satires haven’t run with it as a concept (I mean, imagine Taco Bell walking down the altar, the jokes write themselves).

But I’m getting ahead of myself, let’s let them start the train wreck of fail themselves:

The phrase “stunning development” is used far too often in our politics, but here is an item that can be described in no other way: Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats, frustrated by the fact that the Bill of Rights interferes with their desire to muzzle their political opponents, have proposed to repeal the First Amendment.

Holy shit balls Batman! Complete 100% repeal of the First Amendment?!? That’s like Nick Cage crazy, peoples, and the liberal media is like totes covering it up even though their entire livelihood is at stake…

Course, they haven’t really done anything about the various slow rollbacks of the first amendment that have happened over the decades, severely limiting when and where we can exercise rights like the freedom of assembly, and…

I suddenly forgot my point.

That is precisely what the so-called People’s Rights Amendment would do.

People’s Rights Amendment? I think I was reading something about that not long ag-

If this amendment were to be enacted, the cardinal rights protected by the First Amendment — free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances — would be redefined and reduced to the point of unrecognizability.

Internet Slang for “Oh my God” peoples, this is like the Founding Fathers being anally violated by Space Yetis! SPACE YETIS, people!

I mean, I’m sure this isn’t just overblown and desperate hyperbole designed to short-circuit my critical analysis. You know, like all those Churches who rant about how not letting them violate the First Amendment is the worst violation of the First Amendment the world has ever known, because it’s being violated by Satan Cock?

The amendment would hold that the rights protected by the Constitution are enjoyed only by individuals acting individually; individuals acting in collaboration with others would be stripped of those rights.

Wait… weren’t we just talking about how the First Amendment was being repealed entirely? So, now, our individual rights are secure, but it’s just our rights as organizations?

Let me just check what the People’s Right Amendment is, unless you have something really fucking compelling.

The Supreme Court and U.S. law have long held that Americans do not surrender the rights they enjoy individually when they act in association with one another. This has been a fundamental feature of U.S. law since the very beginning, and even before that, inasmuch as the notion that collective action does not deprive us of our rights goes back into the Common Law as well. U.S. court cases going back to the 18th century recognize that fact, as does federal statute: 1 U.S.C. §1 reads in part: “the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”

Well that’s extremely…

(New tab, google search)

Shock and consternation! It turns out that the offending anal rapist of the constitution is just a new proposed amendment (which will unfortunately probably never be passed) removing the personhood from corporations, because you know, they aren’t. At all. And the exploitation of that Supreme Court temper tantrum over the North giving former slaves personhood is getting to the point of potentially ending even the pretense of democracy in America.

And Mecha-Globo-Super-Robot Surprise! It turns out the corporate whores at the National Review are doing their best to try and spin that as Satan’s Dong penetrating the Ur-Freedom in case it actually does get traction and corporations have to go back to buying elections the old-fashioned way.

Strange things give the Left the heebie-jeebies, and “corporate personhood” seems like a strange thing.

Two things:

1. Yes, “strange things” give the Left the heebie-jeebies. As strongly demonstrated by the Left’s slow acceptance of gay people, trans people, different racial and ethnic cultures, multicultural food experiences, artistic experimentation, etc… while the Right has been all over it. I mean, I know IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION, but can you disguise it a LITTLE bit for us?!?

2. Yes.

Yes. A thousand times yes. Corporate personhood is a “strange thing” by which I mean it is by itself satire. Imagine a corporation doing anything a person would do. Fall in love, eat an ice cream, watch a movie, fuck someone’s mother. You can’t. And most of us can pretty much imagine some pretty messed up stuff doing all those things. Robots, Zombies, Unicorns, Lovecraftian horrors. But corporations aren’t people. They aren’t even remotely people.

And frankly, that was kind of the point when the Supreme Court made them people back in the 19th century. It was the most ludicrous group they could think to grant personhood in protest of the “unthinkable” granting of personhood to what was in their mind property.

But “corporate personhood” is simply the notion that incorporated groups — businesses, political parties, unions, nonprofits, etc. — are single entities under the law.

Nooooooo.

That would be called incorporation, i.e. BEING A CORPORATION.

Corporate personhood is the notion that said incorporated groups are not only single entities, but single people.

That Bil is a person. And Ted is a person. And if Bill and Ted form Bill and Ted’s Excellent Corporation, then that corporation becomes a third human being with the additional rights a person is granted by society.

And that tends to be a problem when Bill and Ted’s Excellent Corporation kills a person and Bill and Ted claim no responsibility, because it’s on the corporation not them. There’s no way to do anything meaningful to said corporation and if you “kill it” then it’ll just be replaced the next day with Bill and Ted’s Bogus Corporation with the same basic structure.

And its even more problematic when Bill and Ted’s Excellent/Bogus Corporation wants the additional rights given individual people despite having no way to be held liable to the same responsibilities.

But then, you already know that, you’re just hoping the mouth breathers that read the National Review will just assume that the very notion of corporations are under attack so they’ll continue to vote for themselves to be ground into meat-byproducts for Bill and Ted’s Excellent Soylent Green Corporation.

One would think that the Left would find this convenient: If Monsanto is not a “person” under the law, it cannot be regulated, taxed, sued, or fined, because for the purposes of the law it does not exist.

Um, no, because it’d still be a “corporate entity”, which would be subject to regulations and taxations as part of its fucking corporate charter. All it would lose is the air of protection that being a potentially immortal shape-shifting person immune to most forms of legal reprisal give it.

…

And now that I think about it, a Corporation would make a great late-level encounter in a D&D campaign. (I swing my sword at it. Great, it misses as the Corporation doesn’t really exist as an entity. Bogus, but at least it doesn’t get to attack. …I didn’t say that.)

Without the ability to treat enterprises as a single legal entity, there would be no redress for damages caused by a defective GM vehicle except to file claims against each individual owner of the 1.57 billion shares of GM stock outstanding.

…

I know this is supposed to be a poor attempt at snark and a complete fail at understanding how corporate charters work, but I can’t stop fantasizing about a world where it worked like that.

The major stockholders or owners of a corporation being personally liable for all the murderous/disastrous “cost-cutting” schemes they pass entirely because they expect not to be holding the bag when or if the check comes due? And an end to offensively low fines that ignore how much corporations make from those exact “calculated risks”?

Maybe even jail time for the particularly criminal enterprises like car designs that kill people or the Gulf Oil Spill?

Can you imagine how great a society that would be?

Fuck you’d only have to do it to the people who owned over a thousand shares and the effects would be so overwhelmingly positive I’m getting wet just thinking about it.

Why must wingnuts tantalize us so with their ideas of nightmare scenarios?

But if GM and Monsanto can be sued, then they can defend themselves from suits. If they can be taxed on their property, then they can own property. If they have liabilities under contracts, then they have rights under contracts, too. If they have liabilities under the law, then they have rights under the law.

Yes, this is all outlined in the corporate charter. In what a corporation is. They don’t need to be physically, legally human beings to do all that. I mean, contract law is largely based on that. Taking complex negotiations between what are in essence, large groups of people and translating it into something more basic and legally sound.

And it’s particularly offensive to have the Koch Bros. robot who wrote this to whine about rights and liabilities when the main reason that the PRA is getting traction is the major abuse of the “rights” of corporations by corporations who know they will never be held to heel on the supposed “liabilities” because they can’t be reasonably applied to something that is in the end not a human being.

Especially since they are so often used by 1 or 2 actual human beings to give their own rights a super boost that no one else could ever hope to match.

But then, some pigs being more equal than others has kinda always been the point for our Aristocratic Democracy-hating Overlords.

…

On that note, man have they been stepping up their attempts to essentially refight the American Revolution. No, we should have a King and an Aristocracy dictating all the policy, rather than letting the rabble decide.

I’m not sure that’s going to work any better for them the second time around.

Also, IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION, Founding Fathers Edition.

But the Occupy Left and the Democrats who sympathize with those ignorant misfits resent the fact that some business enterprises oppose their political agenda and support their opponents.

Yes, liberals are just motivated by a desire to undermine their opponents and not at all worried about some rich fucker’s personal corporation being able to single-handedly finance a candidate’s campaign or something having all the rights of a human without anyway to throw them in jail if they decide to fuck us to death for shits and giggles.

I know, it’s always IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION day on the right, but yeah, not all of us are dicks like you.

Some of us can have principles without checking to make sure a corporation’s dick is up their ass first.

(And some don’t: Wall Street gave generously to the Democratic party, and to Barack Obama particularly, in the 2008 election cycle.)

Democrats are just as bad false equivalence. Take a shot!

The Left controls the unions, the government bureaucracies, most of the media, and the educational establishments

And one day, believing this is true will MAKE it true! You just need to believe harder. Remember if you make it happen by continuing to demonize said groups and threatening to destroy them, it still counts!

but its dreams of taxation and regulation do not sit particularly well with many who have to pay those taxes and suffer the regulation.

Yes, and said individuals can use their single individual rights to vote, argue on their own behalf, peacefully assemble, and so on to convince other individual voters to vote alongside them.

Even by your weak ass sauce, those said rights are still intact. You’re just sad because you can’t tip the scale when it’s just 3 whiny fuckers taking home the bank and feeling mopey that they have to give some back so everyone else can still get enough to FUCKING EAT.

Allow me to just say, BOO FUCKING HOO!

The answer, in the mind of Pelosi et al., is to strip those opponents of their political rights.

Indeed, which is why the right-wing is no longer allowed to vote in federal elections.

Hmm no.

Ooh, maybe they are doing back-ended voting laws that just happen to disproportionately disenfranchise voters that tend to be right-wing.

Nope, still nada.

Ah, I get it, they’re using edited footage and manufactured outrages that feed on the media’s obsession with “equality in scandals” in order to unfairly tar an innocent conservative vote-mobilization organizations and thus defund and disband them to try and prevent people from being able to use their legal rights to protest what they view as bad policy!

… Hmm, what is this red flashing light that says IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION mean and why has it been on this entire time?

The so-called People’s Rights Amendment would have some strange consequences: Newspapers, television networks, magazines, and online journalism operations typically are incorporated.

Yes, and when you marry one and submit a joint tax return, then maybe we can talk about why they shouldn’t be stripped of individual personhood.

Actually, I think this needs to be an interesting protest. Someone forms a corporation, someone else legally marries it using the corporation’s rights as an individual, they submit a federal joint tax return and someone else challenges it because as a corporation doesn’t have a gender, how can we tell if it’s a gay marriage or not.

Tell me that wouldn’t be awesome! C’mon performance artists, time to do something really cool for once in your lives.

So are political parties and campaign committees, to say nothing of nonprofits, business associations, and the like. Under the People’s Rights Amendment, Thomas Friedman would still enjoy putative First Amendment protection, but it would not do him much good inasmuch as the New York Times Company, being a corporation, would no longer be protected by the First Amendment.

Um, no, because Thomas Friedman would still enjoy First Amendment protection. His employer the New York Times being a guy named Newwy wouldn’t really fucking affect him.

…

Wait.

Do… do you think people lose their first amendment right’s to their employer when they start working for them?!?

That they only retain them as part of their organization rather than an individual right?

… Cause, that’s a bit more radical than even you’ve been spinning for awhile. I mean, I know the corporations have really been stepping up the whole “we own our employees and their personal lives” thing, but wow…

I’m actually running out of snark with that one. That’s legitimately worrisome.

In short, any political speech more complex than standing on a soapbox at an intersection would be subject to the whims of Nancy Pelosi.

And I’m back.

See, Nancy Pelosi will personally use her Vagina Dentata to fucking end anyone who tries and make a political speech. You’d be like, I don’t like gays and then from the bushes, Nancy Pelosi’s bush just jumps out and ends you. Body parts everywhere. You’ll be like GYARGH and all the bystanders will be like AIEEE and the National Review will be like “I told you” and it’ll be freaky as shit.

Don’t believe me?

You will.

Scariest fucking thing you’ll ever see, believe you me.

Representative Donna Edwards, a Maryland Democrat, nonchalantly concluded that the amendment would of course strip even political campaigns of the First Amendment rights: “All of the speech which, whether it’s corporations of campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress.”

Couple of responses:

A) I love how for wingnuts and corporate-whore Democrats, “regulation” is constantly being forced to mean “elimination”. Um, let’s say things were “regulated”. I mean, they’re not, but let’s say it were. That would just mean that it was regulated. That it couldn’t be used to injure someone physically, that it couldn’t be illegal, or it couldn’t use, say, loopholes to openly buy congresspersons and use them as your personal mouthpieces to spout out inane drivel like this. So even in this nightmare universe where campaign speech was regulated, it wouldn’t really affect balls all or be worrisome in the least.

B) Seriously, when did “regulate” become a catch all word of pure Satanic malevolence. Regulations are good. Regulations keep us from needing to have a fully working forensics laboratory so we can individually check every single food item we purchase and source of water. Not to mention allowing us to have any of the infrastructure that allows a complex capitalist economy to even remotely function on anything over an extremely local level.

C) Holy Shitballs Rubbing Inappropriately Against a Religious Figure is this entire section complete and utter bullshit. And not bothering to do even a passable job of hiding it.

The entire point of having a Bill of Rights is that there are some things Congress may not do. “Congress shall make no law” is a phrase that Democrats cannot abide, apparently.

Yeah, that section that goes before “establish a national religion”… ooh, right. Well, at least the rest… oh right, “free speech zones”, the extralegal elimination of the assembly rights of the Occupy movement because they were worrying the people who apparently fucking own our police forces now, not to mention the various violations of too many individuals’ right to vote or practice their religion in peace.

Damn, that blinking IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION button, keeps distracting me when I feel so close to an epiphany.

One of the great dangers of such efforts to regulate political speech is that it puts incumbents in charge of setting the rules of the game under which their power and their position may be challenged. That is a recipe for abuse and corruption, and for smothering those critics who would draw attention to abuse and corruption.

Trying to stop our attempted abuse and corruption of the political process is itself abuse and corruption.

It’d be novel if it wasn’t the fucking norm for the right-wing since pretty much this country was first founded.

Nancy Pelosi proposes to amend the Constitution the way the iceberg amended the Titanic.

By creating an easily avoided disaster whose main tragedy was caused by a ship who foolishly disregarded all safety protocols and only viewed the rich as fully human meaningful members?

Metaphors that don’t prove the opposition’s case. Find some.

The First Amendment has served us well.

LEAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT ALONE!

Nancy Pelosi has not,

SHE HAS LADYBITS AND THAT TERRIFIES US MORE THAN YOU COULD EVER IMAGINE!

but she has led her Democrats to a disturbing place in their quest to secure power,

Yes! See what mild attempts to alleviate the worst of the suffering by advocating mild reforms that are mostly slightly less bad ideas the Republicans advocated ten years ago have wrought! Truly in their quest for the power to be repeatedly trounced whenever they propose even the mildest of reforms they have trampled over our very FREEDOMS! Repent liberals at what your mealy-mouthed almost resistance has caused! REPENT!

And seriously, what’s with this IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION light? It’s now setting off buzzers and alarms and seems to be smoking a bit… Is it entirely safe to be standing here?

even at the cost of cashing in the Bill of Rights.

Aw, shit, now even the BULLSHIT alarm is overheating! The room is now covered in flames and I think I can hear the roar of some form of Elder God.

Save me my noble husband! Bill and Ted’s Excellent Corporation Incorporated, my hero, dash me away from here!

What? You don’t have hands or any physical presence?!?

NOOOOOOO! Why did the liberals have to revoke your personhood?!? My death will surely be on their-

What? They didn’t? You’re just…

I… see.

Fuck you too, BTECI. Fuck you to death.

Yes, I know, you can’t. Either of them. It was just… oh just fuck off and let me burn you useless pile of donkey piss.

Shorter John Buttrocket Hinderaker, Power White Blog
If You Don’t Look Like Obama’s Son, No One Cares

• It’s Obama’s fault that a white guy in Mobile was beaten up by some blacks. This statement is not racially divisive because only the black racism of Obama, Eric Holder, and the blacks that beat the white guy up is racially divisive.

Good fucking grief. Some white guy in Mobile flings around the n-word and threatens some black kids with kitchen knives and when he is regrettably attacked over this, the right wing grasps its collective butts in pain, rolls around on the ground like a guy who just chewed and swallowed an Indian ghost pepper, and whines about an imaginary race war fomented by the Negro race and their chief instigator in the White House.

Naturally, ole Buttrocket, never one to pass up a good opportunity for public butthurt, trots this story out as if a gang of crazed Negroes, all besotted on crack and malt liquor and following the secretly transmitted telepathic instructions of the Negro-in-Chief to avenge Trayvon Martin, went roaming the streets of Mobile looking for the first white guy that they could find and then beat him up.

Is that what actually happened? Sadly, no. The victim and the chief attacker had been engaged in racially charged feuds for several years.

Hinderaker starts off quoting Fucker Carlson lackey and chick magnet extraordinaire Jim Treacher, who blames the Mobile assault on Spike Lee (a favorite white-wing bogeyman) and, for good measure, ABC and NBC. (The only real surprise here is that Jim didn’t add Oprah to the list of honky-taunting race baiters, but he probably simply forgot how to spell her name.)

Hinderaker is quick to add Obama to the list

Obama has been an extraordinarily divisive president; neither he nor others in his administration, like Eric Holder, have ever hesitated to foment race hatred when they thought it would serve the Democrats’ political interests.

(If you are wondering about where Holder fits in here, you have obviously forgotten about when he hired the Black Panther Party (all two of them) to ride their Hoverounds to a polling precinct in Philadelphia and threaten white people with their canes.)

For those of you who are thinking about gathering mangoes in the comments to Hinderaker’s post, don’t say I didn’t warn you. A sample:

I’m sure Trayvon did look like Obama’s son. After all, he was pounding a half Jewish, half Hispanic guy’s head into the concrete, wasn’t he?

Is it still a “war” when it’s just two sides getting fucked by a third that’s never depicted?

Karen Mangiacotti, Huff and Puff Post:
Stay-at-home Working Mothers

• Because I’m a Stay at Home Mom who totally has no ill feelings or resentments about being stuck at home, Ann Romney having the maid raise her kids is the epitome of hard work. Also working mothers spend their days eating bon bons like the lucky bastards they are. I don’t count in this population, because I don’t drive a car to work.

Hey, just because the right-wing is our most faithful mango producers, doesn’t mean we should neglect the supposedly liberal sources of complete and utter fail. And so today, we turn to the Huffington Post which has been ever tacking away from any pretense at moderate liberalism back into the swamp it was destined to drown in.

And as a bonus treat, this particular mango is a reigniting of the Mommy Wars. Don’t know what the Mommy Wars were? Well, then, you were a lucky sonuvabitch. I say were, because it’s time for backstory.

See, back in the 80s when white middle class feminists were trying to do things about the glass ceiling and being treated as equals in the workplace, the right-wing realized that the best way to get women to sabotage themselves and thus fail to pass things like the ERA was to pit stay-at-home moms against working moms.

And so they began preying on the natural loneliness, despair, and feelings of disregard and neglect SAHM were feeling from their husbands and society in general and claiming those originated entirely from a narrow subset of rich white women working dream jobs who presumably left their kids to be raised by wolves in the wild so they could be paid 6 figures just by having expensive spa treatments all day.

Now, this might seem stupid, but it proved wildly successful. A lot of housewives feeling the effects of the Feminine Mystique and regretting missed dreams were all too willing to find a point of blame for their situation which wasn’t their own partners or societal sexism. Something easy that would also let them air their envy of women they saw as having it better than them in courage, opportunity, or fortune.

This is not to say that all SAHM fell for this bullshit or that feminists at the time didn’t screw things up as well by focusing so much of their attention on the problems facing middle class white women.

But still, it sunk the ERA and has helped keep the word feminist a dirty word to this day. And now thanks to Hillary Rosen pointing out the obvious, we get to experience it in real time.

Lucky us.

Let’s dive in.

Oh no she DI’INT!

And we start with inappropriate usage of black slang. I don’t even need to scroll up to tell this writer is so white, she needs to use sunscreen just to get the mail.

“What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, ‘Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future.”
- Hilary Rosen, April 11 2012

My word, after reading this, it truly is impossible not to see why she’s worth 20 Hitlers…

Or at least, that might be the case if people would stop quoting the offending remark verbatim and thus revealing that there’s not actually anything, you know, wrong about the comment.

Mitt Romney really did claim that owning himself one of those new wife models meant that he didn’t have to know about silly little things like the economic realities of working women. That his dilettante layabout of a wife could easily be extrapolated to every woman everywhere.

And noting that no, she hasn’t ever worked a day in her life, shouldn’t have been anything more than a “no shit” moment. Bitching at the help to do a better job cleaning your house and raising your children is so far removed from the notion of “work” by any interpretation of the word that… Well, frankly, I have to believe that brain-sucking parasites is the only reason that anyone is taking it halfway serious.

Oh, yes, she did.

Sorry, Karen, still too white. And no, getting a salon tan doesn’t count as being colored.

Strategist and CNN political analyst Hilary Rosen said Presidential first-wife hopeful Ann Romney, homemaker and mother of five boys, was out of touch with the economic issues a majority of women face

Yes, someone with five homes, an army of staff, and a multimillion dollar household income with zero working adults is a little out of touch with the economic issues a majority of women face. And gamma radiation is a little bad for your body.

(e.g.,

E.g.? We need examples for “economic issues, a majority of women face”? Hmm, might make a good illustration of the issue and provide some strong context for-

feeding kids,

Good start, a lot of working mothers do have to stress about how they will make enough to feed their children and hopefully themselves as well. Indeed outrage about this is one of the big reason that the Ann Romney shit is such a sour pill to swal-

sending them to school

…

Sending them to school is an economic issue…?

How?

No seriously, how the fuck is sending one’s kids to school an economic issue? The school bus arrives, you throw them on, maybe you drive them to school, or let ‘em walk and it’s kinda taken care of. Not exactly the grim concern on the minds of working women. Usually concerns more like “how will I keep a roof over my head” or “how do I keep from snapping like a twig with my obscene work load” kinda trump.

Important Addendum at **

But who knows, maybe in Karen’s neighborhood, you need to bribe the bus driver to take your kid to school. Well, hey, it’s just one weird answer, surely the next is much be-

and worrying about their future)

…

Okay, fuck Ann Romney, you’ve successfully convinced me that you are out of touch with the “economic issues a majority of women face”.

Seriously, how do you only stumble on 1 out of 3 even remotely related answers when trying to give unsolicited examples of economic issues women face. It shouldn’t be too hard. Paying the bills, keeping a roof overhead, putting food on the table, keeping them in clean clothes, balancing child care with working hours, lack of child care services at workplaces, pay inequities for the same work, inflexible corporate policies to family emergencies, etc… I don’t even have kids and I could probably rattle off another 10 easy.

I can see why you are taking the slam against Ann Romney so very personally though if you have so few economic concerns that you can’t even guess what they might be.

Seriously, “worry about their future” isn’t even a good “mom” worry. It’s one of those stock phrases that are used in advertisements by middle aged balding men guessing what the “mom” demographic is looking for in life insurance companies.

because she “never worked a day in her life.”

No, she has never worked a job in her life. If you have an issue with how that word is the same for work in general, then please direct your complaint to the English language for being an imprecise mess that mostly relies on context.

This is like asking an overweight woman when she is due, or informing a Mom or Dad that their child appears to have been hit repeatedly with the ugly stick

Yes, noting that an overprivileged wife of a multimillionaire who literally has staff to handle every single aspect of her life might not understand the desperate flailing struggle to stay economically afloat that most people are going through right now is exactly the same as being a rude asshole.

Cause, truly, establishing a false equivalence between a parent so disconnected from her family that she can’t comprehend why torturing the family dog was a bad idea and people who starve themselves while working 3 jobs just so their kids can fill their bodies would be the only fair and not rude thing to do.

– you just don’t do it no matter how loud the screaming in your head is.

…!

You…uh…need to actually fight with yourself to not be rude in the most shallowly obvious of ways?

Um, I think most people in the real world don’t find it all that difficult to refrain from sitcom cliches.

…Is your only reference point for the world bad television? Cause, that might explain the other issues with this post.

You never, ever, suggest a stay-at-home mom is not “really working”.

And if Hillary Rosen said “stay-at-home moms are lazy layabouts who sit on their fat asses eating bon-bons” then you might have a legitimate point.

But seeing as how she was pointing out that Ann Romney as a rich pampered housewife who is so much in the lap of luxury that she doesn’t even have to lower herself to raising the kids or cleaning the house might not understand work…?

Well, yeah, a little harder to ignore that the real issue of the remark might not be so much the actual quote, but rather the internalized voices screaming in your head on a daily basis.

It is inflammatory, infuriating and just plain wrong. Ann Romney raised five boys — not for the faint of heart, I tell you.

Uh, she may have excreted them out of her vaginal cavity (well employed a non-robot to do that for her, but you get the gist), but “raised” is an entirely different question.

And I don’t care if the woman had 50 nannies and a housekeeper.

No.

Sorry, but no.

Having 50 nannies, an army of housekeepers, gardeners, au pairs, and so on does change the game quite a bit.

Like a lot of a bit. Like a metric butt-ton of a bit. Like, not having a fucking clue what work on any level is bit.

In fact, this comment should be bronzed and put in a museum so we can explain to future generations why apologists for the 1% were first against the wall when the revolution came.

The job of holding all of those lives in your heart is huge and definitely full-time.

Oh yes, that’s sure… work… nope, I know you’re trying to induct Ann Romney into your “tribe” against the perceived enemies that have only existed in your own head, but nope. It’s not working. Go back to the drawing board and start again.

The person who says homemakers have it easy is the person who has never been a homemaker. In fact, homemaker in itself is a valid and noble occupation — adding kids into the mix makes you a working mother.

Yeah, you don’t believe this for a fucking second.

If you did you wouldn’t be going on a death crusade trying to relate Mitt Romney’s wife to your personal self-esteem as a homemaker. Next, I’m sure, you’d say it was “your choice” even though your bio page for your job at the Huffington Post is all about how much you miss the days when you were just an aspiring writer and comedian.

We are all working mothers, we are all women who love our families and spend all of our time and energy loving and caring for them. Just assume this to be true before you speculate about how easy someone else has it.

(Look behind me) Yes, I’ll be sure to do that, random lady I’ve never thought that about. I’m sure this has nothing to do with you chafing under the utter disregard and neglect society and your husband as for you or your work and is all about mean people like Hillary Rosen trying to knock all stay-at-home mothers as do-nothing slackers.

I have been a stay-at-home mom for 14 years and I am suffering from a severe case of working-mother-envy.

You envy doing what you do now, but now on a shorter time frame, with less physical and emotional energy?

Um, then do it.

Seriously, there’s nothing stopping you (other than the crippling self-doubt and depression that can be bred simply by the situation). Being a stay-at-home mother is a function of economic security, a luxury only afforded to those who can, as it were, afford it.

Hence why it’s been really hard to sustain the whole cultural pressure that women “should” stay-at-home now that a stable middle class in this country’s largely a thing of the past.

But luckily you’re not saying something stupid like-

I daydream about coffee breaks and two hour meetings with adults.

What?

I lie in bed at night imagining all the smart, hip outfits I would wear to my job.

What?

I check out Monster.com and think “Yeah, I could do that.” I know the reality of the situation is that I would get a job and a new wardrobe and sit down at my desk with my cup of coffee and have no idea what to do with myself without at least 3 people vying for my attention at any given moment, and that I would be reduced to tears the first time I had to miss an assembly at my kid’s school.

WHAT?!?

Um, okay, this seems to crop up a lot in indignant SAHM opuses about those mean old working mothers looking down on them… Well, not always so overtly… the fuck… but still.

This notion that working mothers just don’t understand the demands of being a stay at home mom and that working a job is some sort of vacation filled with coffee breaks, stimulating social activity, and cute outfits.

Yeah, it might not seem that way to people who’ve been out of the workforce for a couple of decades, but pretty much every job out there these days is a long, hard slog. Even the “physically easy” office jobs tend to be understaffed and filled with non-stop projects with tight deadlines and all the stress that comes with them.

Additionally, there is this strange cutting out of the entire other half of a working mother’s life. Not only do they have all the stress of a job, but have to do all the duties of a SAHM when they get home, cleaning the house, raising the kids, making sure the lunches and dinners are prepared, the kids get attention, etc…

But really, the sad thing is, this odd tangent is perfectly understandable.

In fact, it’s so understandable that someone wrote a book about it way back in 1963, you know, called, the FEMININE MYSTIQUE.

When someone is stuck at home doing a shit-ton of labor for no pay, little social or personal acclaim or accolade, and little change in surroundings, one feels insignificant, under attack, disconnected, and otherwise envious of work, any work that receives some sort of concrete acknowledgment of worth.

And one doesn’t even need to be a SAHM to feel its effects. When I was just a Stay-at-home Nothing thanks to being an extended victim of our modern economy I felt every ounce of the worthlessness, and social disregard for my station and complete despair. And I was just throwing in applications and cleaning the house, not working myself ragged rangling kids all day so my husband could work his job without distractions and praise himself as the “main breadwinner”.

But hey, wouldn’t be a problem if people were actually noting that hey, it might have a bit more to do with our society’s punitive view of people who fall through the cracks and non-monetary labor in general rather than turning it into bizarre fetishization of those worse off. Not to mention turning into enemies the only people trying to help and call attention to their plight.

Just saying.

The grass is not always greener on the other side — it is burnt and brown on both sides. There is no way to have it all. Being a mom or dad is hard because we are so invested in these little young lives that depend on us, so overwhelmed by the importance. No matter what we do, it will never be enough. If we work, we are forever torn about not spending time with our young ones. If we stay home we yearn to contribute more, we strive to always set good examples for our kids

Oh hey, look, actual awareness of the double-bind of societal sexism. Perhaps this will propel her to a greater understanding of the issue and why Hillary Rosen, despite being scum in other aspects in her life, was stirred to such ire-

and we worry that unthinking political analysts will dismiss us because we don’t work, and therefore we don’t matter.

Oh… never mind.

But I’m here to tell you, stay-at-home moms and dads: we do matter.

Yeah, stay-at-home parents do matter. Just because there is no monetary value given for their labor and the general labor of raising kids, doesn’t make it any less valuable and it is a shame that such work becomes simply “expected” of women.

Course, not sure what you have to do with that population seeing as how “works from home” is slightly different than “stay-at-home” mother in common usage, but hey, it’s not like a strong grasp of the English language and its nuances is something you would have needed as a writer.

There is no right or wrong answer in the “Working Mommy Wars” — but there are people who raise their children confidently and make no apologies for it, and it seems Ann Romney is one of those people. And I think that’s good. Don’t let anyone pressure you into doing something because it meets their definition of success.

Yes, yelling at the au pair that she needs to keep a grip on those kids and teach them some discipline, is definitely…

Still a stretch and a half.

Sorry, but try as you might to rationalize a perceived tribe member, Ann Romney is not like you. And I don’t just mean because she’s a robotic approximation of a human being designed to be the possession of a sociopath. Fuck, she’s not like most moms. Stay-at-home or working, most of the 99% still have to physically raise the kids, expending the physical and emotional effort, dealing with the messes, the breakdowns, the emo crises, the wrangling, and so on.

Ann Romney has professional staff. A lot of it. She’s never had to scrub the toilets clean of shit, go an entire day smelling of baby vomit and sweat, and I doubt that she’s changed a double-digit number of diapers with her own two hands.

While being able to stay-at-home might be an economic luxury that too few women are able to afford, Ann Romney is on a whole different level.

Ann Romney has legitimate honest-to-Bob leisure. She has staff to round off all the sharp edges and handle all the unpleasant tasks. She lives the life that sometimes gets unfairly attributed to housewives by unfunny newspaper comics written by octogenarians.

And it really doesn’t help when you try and claim kinship to her and wish to raise her as the model of SAHMs.

If Mitt Romney is elected, Ann will be the only First Lady born this century to not have worked outside the home. It’s likely she’ll receive criticism for this and people may immediately dismiss her as being out-of-touch

Cause she is.

Cause she’s never had to struggle for anything in her whole fucking life or deal with want, with the painful stress of trying to make ends meet and deal with the huge expense of child care. If it weren’t for the biological process of pregnancy, one wouldn’t be entirely sure she noticed the impact at all.

, but I say let’s judge people on the content of their opinions and not the status of their resume. The woman is on the front lines of family life in America; we could listen to what she has to say.

Okay, she thinks that her tortured dog enjoyed being strapped to the roof of the car. And thinks that the only economic issue facing women is not enough tax cuts for “consulting positions” at their husbands’ slash and burn companies.

Oh sorry… You meant that we should only rhetorically talk about listening to her as we use her as a cipher for misplaced grievances, didn’t you…? I make that mistake a lot.

Maybe, and I am just throwing this out there, political analysts should analyze politics and withhold opinions on how people should raise their families.

Yeah, they should analyze politics like, what a presidential nominee says about issues affecting say women and how said answer is a non-sensical and out-of-touch comment that insults the issues facing the majority of the country.

Oh wait…

Maybe, just maybe, the qualifications you have as an analyst do not apply to criticizing choices women make. And maybe — now this is a radical one — if we are really interested in making this world better for women, we will trust in their wisdom to make personal choices and not belittle them for it (this actually applies to many current issues, but we will stick to parenting here).

There is so much projection of inner demons here, that I’m reasonably convinced that I’m watching a Polanski film right now.

Believe me, the image people have of stay-at-home moms sitting around eating bonbons and watching their soap operas is as ridiculous as my fantasy of working in an office where we all just sit around eating a co-worker’s birthday cake and talking about Kim Kardashian’s highlights.

Bam! We have bonbon and soap operas!

And I love how one accurate comment about a single overprivileged multimillionare trophy wife has turned into a never ending set of every single cultural disregard for stay-at-home mothers in general.

It’s almost like this post, and pretty much every post like it, is nothing but a mess of projection based on how the Feminine Mystique of being a housewife does a number on one’s self-esteem and feelings of personal worth. Like said destruction leaves one aching for something, anything to blame for it, because accepting it as social and cultural rot seems so much scarier than it being all the fault of those meanie head working mothers who don’t understand what it’s like to change diapers and scrub toilets.

And really, it would be sad, if she wasn’t trying to claim an overprivileged automaton as a kindred spirit at the same fucking time.

Dismissing a stay-at-home parent’s opinion because he or she does not work limits options in the same way that saying “women should not be allowed in the workforce” does.

…

Wow, let’s just count the wrong in this sentence.

So we got legitimate critique equals dismissing all of her opinions past, present and future, insulting false equivalence with the hard fought battle to allow women into the non-sex-industry workforce, insulting attempt to argue that someone’s trying to force stay-at-home parents to work a job, trying to claim Ann Romney as representative of all stay-at-home mothers everywhere (which admittedly is still less offensive than the Mitt Romney comment that started all this where she was equated to working mothers everywhere).

You’d really think there’d be a point where cognitive dissonance would break in and go, “um, brain, what do you think you’re doing”. but apparently, no.

Empowerment is all about expanding options, and that’s where we need to be.

See, this is the problem when your writing style is cliches and your post is nothing but projection.

You end up having really unfortunate concluding remarks like this.

Yes, empowerment is about lots of options, which is why it was perfectly fine to equate Ann Romney’s privileged state with the desperate hand-to-mouth existence of most parents. And why this woman’s despair and loneliness of feeling like she was pushed from her preferred career to being an under-appreciated “mother” is the fault of all those young bitches having to balance work and childcare out of necessity.

Honestly, it makes sense that she would find kinship with a right-wing cipher. The right-wing has always been willing to feed and stroke the embers of resentment and misdirection, setting victims against the rescuers as they find common cause with the people who gladly seek to hold them under the waters.

Perhaps, it would have been less pathetic if she wasn’t an employed writer with a regular column, thus making her one of the fucking working women being shat on by her post and Mitt Romney.

Perhaps, but for us, we’ll never know.

*The picture that accompanies this post heavily borrows iconography for over-worked working outside-the-home mothers to illustrate its bitch fest about how working mothers don’t know how much harder stay-at-home mothers work than them. Frankly, irony’s next-of-kin would have sent us a sternly worded letter, if we didn’t note that little fact.

**ADDENDUM: Okay, yes, it is a little bit of an economic issue. Getting schedules that allow you to work with bus or driving schedules that don’t have you dropping off the kids 2 hours early, the extra time and expense in morning commutes, and all the effort draining that productivity just physically getting kids to go to something they don’t always want to go to at what is to them too damn early in the morning.

That said, it’s still a half an example at best, because it’s not really one of the biggest economic impacts. In fact, it often pales behind the flipside problem (how to handle the end of the school day). The latchkey problem as the school day ends long before one can get off work if one is lucky to have a schedule stable enough to trust. The inability to pick up kids if a crisis crops up without risking one’s job. And so on. So, yes, not unaware of that and how this issue can impact, but still, this is a damn odd list of examples.

Left: The 2012 Republican Nominee. Right: A villain from the comic Transmetropolitan

Even though we here at Sadly, No! Industries make our living* mocking and skewering the train wreck of crazy that is our esteemed colleagues on the right, let no one say we are too petty to extend congratulations when they are due.

So we say, to Mitt Romney, congratulations on securing the Republican nomination**!

Sure, it was his to lose. And lose it he nearly did. Despite the fact that Republicans have always been good authoritarians religiously handing the nomination to whoever’s turn it is, and despite the fact that this year’s pool of nominees was so weak, Crazy Eyes Bachmann thought she had a chance, Mitt Romney still nearly managed to give it away.

Indeed, the Republican base has been desperate from the beginning to find a Not-Romney, any Not-Romney, to be their Non-Mormon Great White Hope. Their desperation was punctuated by the revolving door of losers and nutcases that briefly flirted with front-runner status. Secessionist Rick Perry, Serial Adulterer Newt Gingrich, Failed Pizza Business Owner Herman Cain, even perennial joke candidate Ron Paul got his brief time in the sun. But not even the frothy mixture of Santorum could withstand inevitability as Romney limped forward, bloodied and battered.

And really, truly, we must say, that this great man, certainly has deserved better from his base. They have been concerned that the Smiler isn’t enough of a sociopath for them, that he won’t hate the same people, hold the same grudges, or cackle and clap at the same misfortunes as them.

And that’s unfair, because the Smiler is a glorious sociopath. Truly, our political system has never before seen someone so nakedly and universally concerned for power for its own sake, so completely unable to think of others as people, or been so completely lost when it comes to human interactions.

Sure, this prevents him hating with the proper fervor that the right-wing demands in their Generalisimos, but really, as long as his paymasters are directing his callous boot in the right direction, does it truly matter?

I say, no, no it shouldn’t. After all, Mitt Romney is so very talented at stumbling into cruelty that no other candidate can manage to top, a true sleeper candidate for the sadist voter.

I mean, should we worry that the Smiler will forget to continue to neglect and add suffering to our nation’s African American population, when he was perfectly willing and eager to add unnecessary suffering to his family’s vacations? It would be relief enough to know that the Smiler enjoys making single-digit aged children strain their bladders and bodies on long car trips entirely to artificially save a couple of minutes here and there, but no, he went the extra mile.

By strapping his terrified Irish Setter, Seamus, to the roof of the car, he showed his true qualifications. After all, a person who was willing to risk the life of a family pet and terrify it into shitting itself shows what it truly means to be a compassionate conservative in Bush’s mold. And by dealing with its terrified howls and messy aftermath simply by hosing it down to clean off the car, the Smiler proved his conservative credentials by valuing property over squishy organics even in the heat of the moment amidst sobbing appeals from his kids to stop. That’s true moral clarity.

Oh sure, you might stop and wonder, but isn’t that animal abuse?

Sigh, and that’s why you silly libs will never understand conservative values. It’s only animal abuse when a black football player mistreats a dog. When a rich white person does it, it hardly even rises to the level of amusing banquet conversation.

And truly, it is the Smiler’s more recent responses that best encapsulate this. Novice rookies unworthy of a Vice Presidency might show remorse or even acknowledgement of why people might have been upset. But not the Smiler! He knows that the only problem was the attention it received. And his Stepford Wife model knew the real crime of the story, which is how the liberal media won’t acknowledge how the dog loved that traumatizing life experience and truly not abusing their dog would have been the more bastardly option. Why Mitt Romney, has even gone so far as to note the scandalous attention his torture of dogs has received when no one is looking into how 6 year old Obama personally killed a dog to use as a side-meat for the boy he beheaded in Indonesia.

Truly, a complete failure to comprehend basic reality or human response shows his mettle better than any stump speech or baby-eating ceremony could.

But really, why should the Smiler be dinged on any of that? After all, on the all important “who would you have a beer with” criterion, the Smiler still proves himself admirably.

After all, let us not forget his strong sense of humor. When a trooper decided to engage the Smiler in a prank war by short-sheeting his bed, the Smiler knew the proper response. After all, any war, even a prank war, is a call to manly sweaty action and using every tactic to win. As such, the Smiler knew his bunker-buster was pretending to be the hotel manager and writing a note in official stationary telling the trooper that the maid responsible was fired after a complaint from the esteemed rich dickweed. Said trooper was shocked and awed by the Smiler’s comic timing and knew better than to cross that line again, I’ll tell you.

Or what about his many timeless quips about his hardships growing up. Like the time his dad was getting flak on his campaign because he fired a huge amount of workers in the state and was hoping none of them would remember his face come election time? But the band he hired kept playing the theme song of the state he sent all the jobs to. Even today, the very thought cracks the Smiler up. No wonder his face is so often locked in a grim rictus approximating upward facial movements.

But it’s all good and proper being connected to the common folk, but a true Republican candidate also remembers who are the true job-creators. After all, the Teabaggers have been loud and clear over who the real Americans needing relief have been this last 4 years. That’s right, obnoxious racists unable to handle a black president the poor beleagured 1%.

It’s been rough for the ultra-wealthy. People have been making vague comments about returning tax levels on them to the historic low levels it was in the 1990s and mean old hippies roamed the streets yelling at them simply because they broke the world’s economy and expected a bonus for it. Luckily they were able to buy off the police forces to “take care” of that problem for them.

But still, if one wants the respect of the right-wing, one must be hyper-aware of the hyper-importance of our Feudal Lords and Masters.

And on that score, no one has been more on the ball than the Smiler.

Oh sure, candidates like Ron Paul talk a good game, but only the Smiler has lived that life, breathed that life, and continues to fail to imagine any other life.

Sure, other candidates may have riches, but only the Smiler can boast making more money than people will ever make in their lives as an unemployed slob. And only the Smiler remembers to rub the salt in the wounds (warning, pops up video, so if that’s a problem, do not click) of the human refuge that are our nation’s lazy shiftless unemployed.

The Smiler knows that any man worth his solid gold cadillac has 10 grand in pocket for throwaway bets. The Smiler knows that the only thing better than enjoying a NASCAR race is owning a NASCAR race. The Smiler knows that working hard is demonstrated by using your daddy’s money to buy companies and fire the workers to artificially raise the stock price before dumping them. And the Smiler knows that the only true joy in life is knowing you have someone’s financial security in your hands and crushing it like a grape. After all, if you can’t enjoy simple pleasures like firing people, how will you enjoy bigger pleasures like running a former super-power into the ground or killing millions of foreigners to sate the bloodlust of shirtless 40 somethings still living in their parents’ basements?

And yet the right-wing still hems and haws and isn’t sure that the Smiler can be enough of a bastard to be their one and only.

Though to be fair, to our rich and merry band of material generators, there is a lot to process and not much brainpower to process it. There’s the fact that he’s Mormon, the suspicion that he only seems to disregard women rather than out and out loathe them for posessing vaginas that make right-wing men wish they could force themselves to be attracted to, the fact that he’s Mormon, the willingness to support a vaguely liberal idea to win elections in a liberal state, the fact that he’s Mormon, only resignedly supporting death sattelites to patrol the Mexican border instead of gleefully supporting them, the Mormon Mormon Mormoness of Mormon Proportions, and finally, the fact that he’s Mormon.

But the Smiler will out in the end. After all, he is the natural candidate to the right wing’s campaign against democracy. Sure, more and more candidates agree that America was so much nicer when only rich white men were allowed to vote on anything, but only the Smiler shows the utter disdain for the election process. The Smiler is perfectly willing to say anything, do anything, support anything, denounce anything if it will get him a step closer to power for its own sake.

And he doesn’t care if it insults the intelligence of the American people. He knows that with the unlimited funds made possible by Citizen’s United, it no longer really even matters what he says. Cause who really cares if even the dim bulbs of the right-wing are starting to notice that they are unwanted excess to the equation? Will the low-information voters remember that when they’re worrying about how Obamacare is gonna force government into their Medicare?

Sure, Romney may not believe in shit other than the power (acquiring it, exploiting it, keeping it), but come election day, the conservative base will fall in line, rationalizing their choice over the coming months to realize the many ways in which the Smiler truly is their chosen sociopath. Their dark id to unleash on our nation. Because above all else, and above all fears of Mormoness, he possesses the most important qualification:

Not being black.

And really at the end of this long and tiring Primary, that really always was the most important thing.***

So congratulations, Smiler, may you keep our Mango hunts ever financied.

*For a given value of living. Luckily we are snark-based lifeforms who can survive entirely on the rotten mangos of right-wing blogs.

** Oh sure, technically, he’s still not the official nominee, but frankly, I’ve been sitting on this exact post way too fucking long and if the entire news media and Mitt Romney himself want to pretend the primaries are over, I’m more than willing to play along.

*** And now that I’ve gotten this out of my system, overlong mango-shreddings will continue unabated.****

**** No seriously, you have no idea how long this has been sitting on my back burner, in one form or another, just waiting for the inevitable.

Shorter Karin McQuillan, The American Genius:
Why Do They Want to Pick on Ann Romney?

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

Shorter Steven Horwitz, The Daily Fucker:
Are All Paychecks Created Equal?